네덜란드 우르헨다 판결, 아일랜드 FIE 판결, 독일 기후보호법 위헌판결, 그리고 한국의 기후변화

Abstract

This research examined how the core of the 2019 Dutch Urgenda ruling (the state is constitutionally obligated to enact concrete and effective measures to prevent climate change, and the court can order its legislation) was borrowed by litigants in the Korean Youth Climate Crisis Constitutional Complaint (2020HonMa89), both directly and indirectly, via a 2020 Irish and 2021 German ruling. To do so, this paper first examined the ECtHR case law that provided the precondition for the Urgenda ruling before examining how the Irish and German judiciary subsequently treated the same issue. It then looked into the Korean constitutional complaint to see what arguments were employed and how foreign case law was used. As generalizable facts, it concludes that Korean litigants employed foreign case law to 1) stress the incontestability of certain facts (fact-related), 2) as evidence of a global consensus on a legal principle (legal principle-related), 3) to emphasize the effects a ruling could have on Korea’s national judicial prestige (prestige-related), and 4) encourage the judiciary to be more active on the issue (judicial restraint-related).