The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s carbon reduction law does not conform with the Constitution as it fails to protect people’s basic human rights beyond 2031. It asked the National Assembly to revise the law by Feb. 28, 2026. Otherwise, the current law will cease to have effect.

The court ruled unanimously that Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis was incompatible with the Korean Constitution in four constitutional complaints filed by youth and civic groups here.

The act stipulates that Korea reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to 2018 levels. But it does not set further targets after 2030.

It is the first ruling in Asia that recognizes the government’s lack of response to the climate crisis could infringe on human rights.

“(The government) violated the principle of prohibition of excessively deficient protection in that it did not present the quantitative level of the reduction target from 2031 to 2049,” the ruling said, explaining the government’s lack of response “fails to have the 한국을 minimum necessary characteristics as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis.”

The principle of prohibition of excessively deficient protection stipulates that the state should take appropriate and efficient minimum protective measures to protect the basic rights of its people. It serves as a major criterion for judgment in cases that contend for protection, not infringement of rights.

In April and May, the Constitutional Court held two unusual public hearings to hear opinions from civic groups, scholars and the government on the issue.

With the provision being in effect only until Feb. 28, 2026, the government and the National Assembly should establish stronger climate measures by reflecting the purpose of the Constitution by the deadline for amendment.

“The future generations are restricted from participating in the current democratic political process, even though they will be more exposed to the effects of the climate crisis,” the ruling said. “In this regard, legislators have more specific legislative obligations and responsibilities for medium- to long-term greenhouse gas reduction plans.”