Constitutional Court Rules "Carbon Neutrality Act Unconstitutional... Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Must Be Set After 2031" (Comprehensive)

All Judges Unanimously Declare "Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Carbon Neutrality Act Unconstitutional"
Strengthened Climate Measures Must Be Established by March 2026

On the 29th, when the Constitutional Court ruled that the government's response to the climate crisis could infringe on the basic rights of the people, the legal team and plaintiffs held a press conference in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

A ruling has been made that the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality, which does not present greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond 2031, is unconstitutional. This judgment came four years and five months after the first climate lawsuit was filed in Asia in 2020, marking the first time the claim that the government's insufficient climate response violates citizens' fundamental rights was accepted. The government and the National Assembly must prepare strengthened climate measures by February 28, 2026.

At around 3:26 p.m. on the same day, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled the unconstitutionality of Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the "Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth (Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality)" in response to the climate crisis.

The Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality, enacted in 2021 to reduce greenhouse gases and establish climate measures, includes Article 8, Paragraph 1, which stipulates "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 35% compared to 2018." The government set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% under this law, but there are no standards beyond 2031.

The Constitutional Court stated, "(This provision) does not present any form of strategic level reduction targets from 2031 to 2049," adding, "It violates the principle of minimum protection and the principle of legal reservation, thereby breaching the obligation to protect fundamental rights and infringing on the petitioners' environmental rights."

The principle of minimum protection means that the state must take at least minimal protective measures to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights, and the principle of legal reservation requires administrative actions to have a legal basis. Although the government aims for carbon neutrality by 2050, the Constitutional Court judged that there are no plans beyond 2031, thus no protective measures for the people.

According to the Constitutional Court's decision, the relevant provision will remain effective only until February 28, 2026. By then, the government and the National Assembly must establish climate measures stronger than the current ones. The Ministry of Environment issued a press release on the day, stating, "We respect the Constitutional Court's decision that Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality is unconstitutional," and "We plan to faithfully implement follow-up measures."

Chief Justice Lee Jong-seok of the Constitutional Court and other constitutional justices entered the Constitutional Court courtroom in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 29th, where constitutional complaints and unconstitutionality trials were held. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

The goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 was dismissed. However, five justices expressed opinions confirming unconstitutionality, which was more than the four justices who opposed it. For a constitutional complaint to be accepted, at least six out of nine justices must agree. Since a majority of justices criticized the government's level of climate response, it is expected to have a significant impact on future policy formulation.

In particular, the difference in calculation methods for greenhouse gas reductions between 2018 and 2030 came under scrutiny. According to the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality, emissions in 2018 are calculated as "total emissions," while emissions in 2030 are calculated as "net emissions." The justices who argued unconstitutionality mentioned, "From the perspective of scientific facts and international action standards that should be considered in calculating specific greenhouse gas reduction targets, this violates the principle of minimum protection or the principle of legal reservation," and "It breaches the obligation to protect fundamental rights, infringing on the petitioners' environmental rights."

Environmental organizations welcomed the ruling. The civic group Climate Solutions said about the Constitutional Court's decision, "Although late, this decision is fortunate," and urged, "The legislative and executive branches must start follow-up measures promptly with the determination that not a single moment can be wasted."

This climate lawsuit began in March 2020 with youth environmental groups, followed by infants and citizens filing a constitutional complaint claiming that "the government's climate reduction targets are excessively low and infringe on citizens' fundamental rights." There were a total of 255 plaintiffs, and the Constitutional Court held two public hearings in April and May to hear opinions from the government, academia, and civil society.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.