기후위기 시대의 환경권에 대한 고찰 ― 유럽인권협약과 헌법상 환경권의 비교를 중심으로 ―

In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the right to a healthy environment as a universal human right. Regional human rights instruments such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, and the Arab Charter on Human Rights explicitly enshrine environmental rights. In contrast, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not contain an explicit provision on the environment. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has interpreted Article 2 and Article 8 in an evolutionary manner to protect individuals from rights violations caused by environmental pollution and climate change. The ECtHR has assessed whether states have fulfilled their positive obligations under the Convention in cases involving environmental harm, basing its judgments on Articles 2 or 8. Notably, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Court ruled that the Swiss government had violated its obligations under Article 8 by failing to take adequate and consistent legislative and administrative measures to address climate change. This decision is significant in that the Court recognized state responsibility for climate-related human rights violations, despite the absence of an explicit environmental right in the ECHR. While such interpretive approaches are commendable, there is ongoing debate as to whether existing provisions are sufficient for addressing the climate crisis effectively. Consequently, efforts continue to establish an autonomous right to a healthy environment within the ECHR framework. Meanwhile, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea has explicitly recognized the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right since 1980. Although there are differing views on its legal nature, the Constitutional Court of Korea has regarded environmental rights as a comprehensive fundamental right encompassing both civil and social rights. Through its case law, the Court has specified its concrete content, such as the right to clean water, the right to live in an environment with sunlight and ventilation, the right to live on soil free from harmful chemicals, and the right to a peaceful and quiet environment. In a recent decision concerning national greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth, the Court held that the failure to set quantitative targets for the period between 2031 and 2049 constituted a violation of environmental rights. This paper analyzes the provisions of the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR, as well as the constitutional recognition of environmental rights and relevant decisions of the Korean Constitutional Court, to explore the meaning of environmental rights as a fundamental right. In particular, it argues for the recognition of environmental rights as an autonomous right in the era of climate crisis, and highlights the normative implications of environmental rights as the right to live in a stable climate system.