Case Law Database
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea
| Date of Application: | Fri, 13 Mar 2020 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Thu, 29 Aug 2024 |
| Decision Making Body: | South Korean Constitutional Court |
| Law Applied: | Constitution of South Korea |
| Keywords: | Best available science, Intergenerational equity, Safe Climate, Future generations, Insufficient action |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea Constitutional Court 2020Hun-Ma389
At Issue: South Korean youth filed suit against the government alleging that insufficient action on climate change violates their fundamental rights.
Summary: On March 13, 2020, nineteen youth activists filed a complaint in the South Korean Constitutional Court alleging that the nation's climate change law violates their fundamental rights, including the right to live and a clean environment. South Korea's Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth, which was amended in December 2019, commits to reducing annual nationwide greenhouse gases to 536 million tons by 2030, a 24% cut from 2017. The petitioners argue that this target is insufficient to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
The petitioners submitted a supplemental complaint on May 15, 2020, to provide the Court with info on the facts and science of climate change, and, in their view, Korea's insufficient response to the threat.
On September 28, 2020, the petitioners submitted a supplemental brief to provide the Court with updated info on recent severe climate impacts in South Korea, the need for a prompt hearing of the case, and the Irish Supreme Court's handling of a similar case in Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland. On January 26, 2021, the petitioners filed a second supplemental brief with arguments on the South Korean government's violation of its obligation to protect citizens from the harms of climate change. The brief argues that the obligation to respond to climate change is derived from the Korean constitution's guarantee of the right to a healthy environment, the obligation to prevent disasters, and the obligation to protect health and safety. Petitioners argue that the government has violated this obligation by failing to enact adequate and effective climate legislation, and that petitioners have standing to challenge legislative omissions due to inadequate protection of environmental rights. On April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs submitted a third supplemental brief presenting arguments that the climate change law and enforcement of that law are underprotecting their basic rights and are violating their equal rights.
On February 15, 2024, this case, 2020Hun-Ma389, was consolidated with three others: 2021Hun-Ma1264, 2022Hun-Ma854, and 2023Hun-Ma846.
On August 29, 2024, in a unanimous decision, the Constitutional Court found that Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth is not in conformity with the Constitution, ordering the National Assembly to amend the law by February 28, 2026. The Constitutional Court found that the lack of legally binding targets for reductions beyond 2031 violated the constitutional rights of future generations and failed to uphold the government’s duty to protect those rights. The court dismissed other claims challenging the Carbon Neutrality Basic Plan and the enforcement decrees of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth.
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea - Climate Change Litigation
Court filed documents:
Complaint (unofficial English translation)
Decision (English)
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 27. Right to an adequate standard of living (CRC Article 27)
Complaint:
The complainants allege that the nation's climate change law violates their fundamental rights, including the right to life and a clean environment, and equal rights protection. (arts 2, 6 and 24).
The petitioners argue have standing to challenge legislative omissions due to inadequate protection of environmental rights (art 12).
“As the too passive greenhouse gas reduction target currently established by the Korean government is unable to prevent the potential catastrophe of climate disaster, the Korean government is worsening the present and future life of the younger generation and infringing their environmental rights (Article 35), the right to life and health (Article 10), the right to live in a humanly condition (Article 34), and other fundamental rights protected by the Korean Constitution.”
Decision:
Par 4(a) “In particular, legislation that sets GHG reduction targets inherently restricts the fundamental rights of the current population to safeguard the future population’s fundamental rights. Since future generations have even more limited participation in the democratic political process, judicial review of the fulfillment of the legislative duty in this area must be much stricter. This point is symbolically highlighted by a statement made by Ms. Han (12 years old), a Complainant in this case, during a hearing: “Grown-ups can elect members of the National Assembly or the President through voting, but children do not have that opportunity. Participating in this lawsuit was the only action I could take, and had to take, for the future."
Involvement of children in hearings
- Not sure
Children are cited as applicants. They do not depose to affidavits. Their individual circumstances are not relayed.
Intergenerational rights
Application / complaint:
The complainants allege a violation of the right of the next generation to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 35 of the Constitution, the environmental right), the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change (Article 11 of the Constitution, the equal right protection).
As a request to protect the next generation, this Complaint is as an “inter-generational petition” through the process and by the substantial rights under the “Constitution.”
Future generations
Decision:
The Constitutional Court found that the lack of legally binding targets for reductions beyond 2031 violated the constitutional rights of future generations and failed to uphold the government’s duty to protect those rights.
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants PARTIALLY granted
The Constitutional Court found that the lack of legally binding targets for reductions beyond 2031 violated the constitutional rights of future generations and failed to uphold the government’s duty to protect those rights but dismissed other claims challenging the Carbon Neutrality Basic Plan and the enforcement decrees of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
This case is the first of its kind in East Asia, and the first in the Korean Constitutional Court to recognise environmental rights in relation to climate change.
The court makes a finding that future generations’ rights are violated.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
The children are active climate activists and members of Youth4ClimateAction.
They approached the lawyers themselves.
How South Korea’s landmark climate hearings could shape regional action
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
Number of children or youth involved
19