South Korean court rules on climate lawsuit involving embryo plaintiff

Text size

A groundbreaking climate case brought against the South Korean government by young environmental activists who named an embryo as the lead plaintiff is set to be decided by the country's Constitutional Court on Thursday.

In this first case of its kind in Asia, the plaintiffs claim that South Korea's legally binding climate commitments are inadequate and not being met, violating the country's constitutional human rights guarantees.

A similar youth-led attempt was recently successful in the US state of Montana, while another case is being heard before the European Court of Justice.

The case – known as Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea, named after the nickname of an embryo born in the womb and now a toddler – involves four petitions filed by children.

In 2021, South Korea made a legally binding commitment to reduce its carbon emissions by 290 million tons by 2030 – and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

To achieve this goal, the country would have to reduce its emissions by 5.4 percent annually from 2023 – a target that has not yet been achieved.

If no changes are made, the plaintiffs argue, future generations will not only have to live in a destroyed environment, but will also have to bear the burden of massive greenhouse gas reductions.

This would mean, according to the lawsuit, that the state had violated its duty to protect the fundamental rights of those affected.

Similar climate processes have been successful around the world, for example in Germany in 2021, where climate targets were declared inadequate and unconstitutional.

But a child-led lawsuit in California alleging government failures to curb pollution was dismissed in May.

The lawyer for a 12-year-old plaintiff told AFP the plaintiffs' age helped make people aware of their desperation for change and urged the court to rule in their favour.

“This lawsuit is not just a symbolic lawsuit, but a lawsuit that we can and must win,” said Youn Se-jong.

“The core of the climate lawsuit is no different from the numerous constitutional issues related to fundamental rights that the Constitutional Court has ruled on, such as conscientious objection to military service or the right to abortion,” Youn said.

“If we delay our actions to reduce the impacts of climate change, that burden will be passed on to future generations.”