Do-Hyun Kim et al v South Korea (Constitutional Court, 2024)

Remedy ordered

• Legislative amendment: The government was ordered to amend Article 8(1) of the Climate Neutrality Framework Act.⁶ The amendment must introduce legally binding carbon emission reduction targets for 2031-2049. These targets must be grounded in scientific evidence, international benchmarks, and South Korea’s fair share of the global carbon budget, aligned with the Paris Agreement goals.⁷

Compliance mechanism

• Hard deadline: The Court ordered that Article 8(1) remain temporarily in force but be amended by 28 February 2026.⁸

• Constitution: The Court found that Article 8(1) of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act violates the right to a healthy environment (Article 35) of the Korean Constitution, interpreted as imposing a duty on the State to protect individuals—including future generations—from climate harm.
  • The Court invoked two constitutional principles and found: (1) the Principle of Prohibition against Insufficient Protection is violated by the lack of quantified emission reduction targets from 2031 to 2049 in Article 8(1) of the law; therefore, it fails to protect future generations from excessive burden from the climate crisis⁹; (2) the Principle of Statutory Reservation, including the Principle of Parliamentary Reservation, was also violated as long-term climate policy decisions must be clearly defined by legislation. The lack of specific statutory targets for 2031-2049 is therefore an ineffective legislative framework to address the climate crisis and protect constitutional rights.¹⁰

Government response

• Proactive: The Ministry of Environment immediately issued a statement in response to the ruling, stating that it respected the verdict and would implement the necessary follow-up measures.¹¹ Members of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary group on climate action indicated support for strengthening climate legislation, including revisiting concerns about how the 2030 emission reduction target was calculated (although this aspect of the case was not ultimately declared unconstitutional).¹²

Legislation

• The Court ordered a legislative amendment. Although the Framework Act was amended in October 2024, those amendments did not address Article 8(1), which remained non-compliant with the Constitution.
• The 28 February 2026 deadline was missed, due in part to political instability and elections. As of April 2026, the National Assembly is still in the process of preparing amendments to introduce legally binding post-2030 targets with a goal of May 2026.¹³
• To support the amendment process, a deliberative polling (citizens’ assembly-style) process involving around 300 randomly selected citizens was conducted in early 2026. This process recommended aligning future emissions targets with the IPCC 1.5°C pathway and prioritising earlier emissions reductions to avoid shifting burdens to future generations.¹⁴

Policy

• Second NDC: South Korea submitted an updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) in January 2025, setting a 2035 emissions reduction target range of 53–61 per cent compared to 2018 levels.¹⁵ The higher end of this range aligns with a 1.5°C pathway and reflects the influence of the Constitutional Court’s ruling.