기후위기 헌법재판소 결정의 감축목표 적절성 판단

On August 29, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Korea issued a historic ruling. In a constitutional complaint disputing the adequacy of the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the state through laws and administrative plans as a mitigation measure for addressing the climate crisis, the Court ruled that the reduction targets under Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis (hereinafter referred to as the "Carbon Neutrality Framework Act") were insufficient, thereby infringing upon the complainants' constitutional right to a healthy environment and violating the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. This was declared as a “decision of unconstitutionality with a directive to amend” (Case No. 2020Hun-Ma389, August 29, 2024). More specifically, the Constitutional Court determined that the failure of Article 8(1) of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act to present reduction targets for the period between 2031 and 2049 violated the principle of prohibition of insufficient protection, which requires the state to take at least minimal protective measures to safeguard fundamental rights. Additionally, the Court found that matters requiring significant societal consensus, such as reduction targets, must be specified by law, thereby also breaching the principle of statutory reservation. Consequently, the National Assembly is required to amend the relevant provisions by the revision deadline of February 2026. This lawsuit, addressing the risks posed by the climate crisis, is significant as it marks the first climate litigation in Korea involving complainants such as youth, civic organizations, and infants, and is also the first climate lawsuit in Asia to result in a constitutional ruling against a government for its inadequate response to the climate crisis. This article focuses on the outcome of Korea's first climate constitutional lawsuit, analyzing how the Constitutional Court assessed the adequacy of greenhouse gas reduction targets, which was the central issue in the case. Such analysis could serve as a critical benchmark for assessing the adequacy of future reduction targets set by the Korean government. Practically, the Korean government is obligated to establish its reduction target for 2035 and submit it to the UNFCCC Secretariat by 2025. The 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) will be the first NDC established following the Constitutional Court’s ruling and will cover the period for which the reduction targets were left unaddressed under the current Carbon Neutrality Framework Act, a key issue that led to the ruling of unconstitutionality. Through this decision, it has become clear that the government’s actions in setting NDCs are subject to constitutional review. Can the next NDC withstand constitutional scrutiny? How can its adequacy be assessed? This article reflects on the significance of Korea's first climate constitutional lawsuit and examines the key points and reasoning behind the Constitutional Court's decision, as well as the broader implications of the ruling.