South Korea’s constitutional court ruled that parts of the country’s climate legislation fail to protect the rights of future generations. This August 2024 ruling echoes a landmark case from Germany where the court similarly found existing climate legislation insufficiently ambitious and precise to protect the rights of future generations.
But it also reflects a broader trend where domestic courts hold governments accountable for failing to uphold their climate commitments. Earlier this summer, the Montana State Supreme Court upheld a ruling in a case brought by 16 young plaintiffs, affirming that regulators must consider greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating new oil and gas projects. LSE’s Grantham Institute and Columbia’s Sabin center for Climate Change Law have documented thousands of cases of climate litigation around the world.
But does all of this litigation actually help the fight against climate change? The Korean ruling gives the government until February of 2025 to revise the law. The court was fine with Korea’s current policies – but ordered the government to specify carbon-emission reduction targets for the years between 2031 and 2050. But the court did not tell the government what those targets should be, or force the government to take specific measures. This is pretty typical for cases about national mitigation policies. Courts are often reluctant to take the place of legislatures.
Can climate litigation increase the credibility of climate pledges?
In one important way, rulings like this matter immediately. Because climate policies are about achieving long-term targets, they tend to suffer from a credibility gap. Governments may very well announce plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But the people who make these promises won’t be in power in 2050. Reducing carbon emissions often requires expensive policies, like shutting down coal plants and subsidizing renewable energy – or unpopular policies, like carbon taxes. It should then be no surprise that actual policies tend to fall short of what governments pledge to do.
This is where courts can make a difference. In a forthcoming article in the Journal of Politics I show that court rulings in various European countries that addressed national climate mitigation policies, like the Korean ruling, made climate policies more credible in the eyes of important stakeholders: investors. The article shows that in days following a ruling where the government loses, the stocks of major coal companies face unexpectedly high losses. And stock market valuations of major renewable energy companies increase unexpectedly.
The research finds no effect for major oil and gas companies or “green” companies. I suspect that this is because more credible mitigation policies most immediately affect coal companies, as Europe is phasing out coal. Moreover, renewable energy companies directly benefit from subsidies or other green industrial policies. By contrast, the effect on oil and gas companies is more ambiguous. For example, the European Union labels natural gas investments as green energy investments.
How does this matter for Korea?
South Korea relies heavily on coal, produces very little renewable energy, and consistently ranks near the bottom of climate policy rankings among richer countries. South Korea also has the worst air pollution among OECD countries. According to the Air Quality Life Index, South Koreans would live 1.5 years longer if air quality met World Health Organization standards. Coal-powered power plants are a major source of air pollution. Thus, Koreans could gain immediately from switching more quickly from coal to renewables, and make progress on climate goals in the long run.
Whether this will happen remains to be seen. My research with Haillie Na-Kyung Lee shows that Koreans blame China for bad air pollution days, not their own government. While China is responsible for about a third of Korea’s pollution, domestic power plants and factories are also major contributors. Yet the government faces only modest public pressure over air pollution and climate.
The court ruling will now make decisions about how quickly to phase out coal more prominent. Moreover, it raises the possibility that courts will hold future governments accountable for today’s climate pledges and policies. Court rulings rarely lead to big social and policy changes by themselves. Ultimately, it will depend on whether social movements mobilize courts and other parts of the government to demand stronger climate action. Yet this ruling may make it more likely in the eyes of investors and others that the South Korean government will need to follow through on its climate pledges.
Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.
