기후변화에 대한 사법적 대응의 가능성: 기후변화 헌법소송을 중심으로

The dangerous climate change and its effects have been agreed in the international community. The necessity of reducing greenhouse gases(GHG) to prevent climate change is supported by climate science. In principle, the international community’s agreement to reduce GHG emissions should be concreted and executed by the legislation and enforcement actions of individual countries. However, if politics in reality does not function properly, the role of the judiciary may be requested. The Urgenda case is the effective functioning of the judiciary against climate change, which can also be referred to in our climate change constitutional litigation. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the government’s lowering of its GHG reduction targets violated its duty of care to prevent damage from climate change and the government’s decision was insufficient in measures to prevent violations of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, the Supreme Court ordered the government to make its GHG reduction target higher. In Korea, under the mandate of the Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth, GHG reduction targets are set up in the enforcement decree. However, the law does not prescribe proper standards for setting minimum GHG reduction targets taking into account climate science and international agreements. In addition, the enforcement decree makes goal for reducing GHG emissions below the level internationally requested to prevent climate change, and it is not even being implemented properly. The GHG reduction target setting of the law and its mandate does not correspond to the minimum appropriate and effective measures to protect basic rights from climate change damage. And it can be evaluated as a violation of the state’s duty to protect citizen’s constitutional rights.