abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Эта страница недоступна на Русский и отображается на English

Материал доступен на следующих языках: English, 한국어

Статья

21 Май 2024

Автор:
Amnesty International

S. Korea’ s landmark climate change case could set human rights precedent

"South Korea: Climate case before South Korea’s Constitutional Court could set human rights precedent," 20 May 2024

Ahead of a hearing on Tuesday 21 May in South Korea’s Constitutional Court of four landmark cases in which about 200 people, including more than 60 children one of whom had not been born when the case was first filed, are arguing that the government is failing to adequately protect them from the harms of climate change...

“This is among the first major climate-related cases to reach a high court in Asia and the plaintiffs are arguing that South Korea’s government is not doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“They contend that the state, by failing to act sufficiently to address the threat of climate change, has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and a healthy environment.

...South Korea’s Constitutional Court is due to review existing testimony and accept additional submissions in a hearing tomorrow in which four climate justice cases have been combined. One of the cases involving the children is widely referred to as Woodpecker vs South Korea after the name given to the unborn child at the time the case was first filed, and who is now a plaintiff aged 18 months old. A decision on the case is expected later this year.