국가공동체 지속가능성의 사법적 구현 -기후위기 헌법재판의 분석을 중심으로-

The purpose of this article is to examine the prerequisites, possibilities, and limitations of implementing normative calls for a sustainable national community to the judicial review. In particular, this article will reflect on the role and limitations of the judiciary in general by examining climate change lawsuits against the state in the face of the recent climate crisis. Many countries have established constitutional grounds to support the sustainability of the nation-state and the protection of future generations. Representative examples include the national goal clause on environmental protection, the constitutional obligation of the state to address the climate crisis, and the right to a healthy environment. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea declared that legislation and national plans to address the climate crisis were insufficient, as this violated the state's obligation to protect the environment. Decisions on the climate crisis were important precedents for the unconstitutionality of the climate crisis by the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights' decision on human rights violations. These three decisions all confirm that legislative decisions on climate change should no longer be treated as matters of policy, but as matters of human rights and fundamental rights, and that in this process, ecological sustainability and the interests of future generations are taken into account, and that the discretion of the legislator in fulfilling the obligation to protect national environmental guarantees or environmental rights is subject to constitutional review. Nevertheless, the three decisions are sometimes overlapping and make different judgments. This article, in particular, analyzes the structure of the judgments made by each decision, and analyzes the similarities and differences in the structure of the judgments to see what they mean for the approach and controlintensity of the Constitutional Court's examination of the climate crisis. The decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Federal Constitutional Court differ in the standards and paths of examination of the basic rights and the subject of judgment, and the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Human Rights Court differ in the nature of the active duty to protect the environment and the extent of control. Such discussions will provide food for thought on how and under what conditions the Constitutional Court should address the current issue of the climate crisis as a national community, how much active judicial intervention can be justified from the perspective of the separation of powers and democracy, and what role the judiciary should play to ultimately ensure the sustainability of the national community.