No Child’s Play: Why children in South Korea are suing its government over climate change

In early April, a group of elderly women in Switzerland, dubbed the ‘Climate Grannies’, secured the first-ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights. And today (21 April), South Korean constitutional court will have its final hearing in the so-called baby climate case.

While climate change cases are gaining traction around the world — from 884 in 2017 to 2,180 in 2022 — this case is significant for two reasons. First, one of the litigants is just one-year-old, making him one of the youngest plaintiffs in climate litigation history. Secondly, this is the first case in East Asia to challenge national climate policies, and so could set a huge precedent.

Let’s take a closer look at the ‘baby climate case’ — from who are the plaintiffs, why are they suing the government and what could the impact of this case be in Asia.

What’s the case all about?

South Korea’s Constitutional Court will on Tuesday (21 May) hold the second and final hearing in the Woodpecker et al v South Korea case. The initial hearing was held in April in which the litigants accuse the South Korean government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change.

In fact, the case before the court is the result of merging four similar cases that were filed between 2020 and 2023.

One of the most famous faces in the case is that of Woodpecker, the nickname of Choi Heewoo, who is now one-year-old. His mother, Lee Dong-Hyun, had said in 2022: “I am proud every time a 20-week-old foetus moves in my belly, but I feel sorry and regretful that this child who has not emitted even a gram of carbon dioxide has to live with the current climate crisis and disaster.”

She argued that South Korea’s government is deferring the task of reducing carbon emissions to future administrations and younger generations. “The more we think this task can be delayed now, the bigger the burden our future generations will have,” she was quoted as telling NPR. “I think it’s the same as passing on a debt to your children.”

Around 200 of the plaintiffs argue that the government’s climate goals are too weak. Under its current nationally determined contribution (NDC) to meeting the UN Paris Agreement, the government is aiming to lower the country’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 40 per cent below 2018 levels by 2030.

Climate Action Tracker notes that if all countries held South Korea’s standard, the world would shoot up by three degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the government is failing to provide constitutionally required protection of their fundamental rights: right to life, right to pursue happiness, right to general freedom, right to property, right to healthy environment. They also argue that the State is failing to fulfil its obligation to provide its people with protection from disasters.

Would the case have an impact?

Nature reports that the timing of the ruling is important, as countries will be updating its NDCs next year. If the court ruled in the favour of the plaintiffs, it would force South Korea to be more ambitious in its next round of climate plans, lasting until 2035.

Additionally, the court’s ruling will echo across Asia. Sejong Youn, who is a legal counsel for the case in Seoul, told Nature, “It will send a message: all countries need to take action in order to tackle this global crisis, and there are no exceptions.

Climate-litigation researcher Masako Ichihara at the Kyoto Climate Adaptation Centre in Japan also told Nature: “It’s a very big and significant case in Asia.” That’s because people in Asian countries are less inclined to use litigation to question government policies. “Litigation is a last resort,” she said.

Climate change experts have noted that even if the plaintiffs lose the case, it will change how people perceive climate litigation in the continent. Dr Mingzhe Zhu, a lecturer at the University of Glasgow, UK, told Euro News: “Even if you lose this time, you can lose beautifully in the sense that you provoked social awareness. The very fact that this case went to the constitutional court — that is already a certain sense of success,” he said.

Are there similar climate change cases across the world?

South Korea’s so-called baby climate case is one among the many across the world. In April, Europe’s top human rights court ruled in favour of more than 2,000 women aged 64 and over when it said that the Swiss government’s failure to cut carbon emissions was a violation of citizens’ rights.

Prior to that in March, India’s Supreme Court had also established that a clean and healthy environment was a fundamental right.

And in 2020, six young people from Portugal filed a case against 32 European countries, including Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Russia and Turkey. They had argued that climate change threatens their rights to life, privacy, mental health and other matters. However, the ECHR had ruled out their case owing to geographic stretch.

In 2020, 16 children — between the ages of 5 and 22 — took the American state of Montana to court, saying that the State violated their right to a clean environment, which is enshrined in the state’s constitution. In 2023, after a protracted court fight, they won with the court stating that Montana must consider the effects of climate change when deciding whether to begin or renew fossil-fuel projects.

With inputs from agencies