My decision to become a “climate lawyer” stemmed from the climate despair I felt in my daily life. I often felt powerless in the face of increasingly hot summers and the daily reports of extreme weather events. While anyone can become a direct or indirect victim of climate change, it's difficult to pinpoint a specific party to hold accountable for the climate crisis.
Precisely for this reason, I often face difficulties when conceptualizing and planning climate lawsuits. It's rare for clear ideas to immediately spring to mind about which party to hold accountable for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what specific actions to demand they cease, and furthermore, what legal basis exists to hold them responsible.
So, I decided to borrow ideas from aspiring legal professionals who carry the seeds of becoming future climate lawyers. Through "The 1st Korea Climate Litigation Idea Competition."
This contest solicited ideas from domestic law school students for: ᐃ Public interest lawsuits to decarbonize and reduce greenhouse gases in Korea's energy transition and industrial sectors ᐃ Other public interest lawsuits to reduce greenhouse gases and respond to the climate crisis domestically and internationally.
The competition's judging panel featured distinguished experts in Korea's climate and environmental fields. Professor Lee Jaehong from Ewha Womans University Law School, Attorney and Policy Activist Choi Changmin of Plan 1.5, Attorney Park Soyoung of Green Korea Legal Center, and Attorney Shin Yujung of SFOC served as judges.
Out of the 11 teams that participated in the competition, a total of 4 teams passed the rigorous preliminary proposal review and advanced to the final competition. Shall we head to the final competition judging venue held on February 11th?
First to present was the “Dubai Kimbap” team (Kwon Bokyung, Jo Minje), proposing a constitutional lawsuit idea under the theme “We cannot stake the future of greenhouse gas reduction on the mirage of CCUS.” The Dubai Kimbap team pointed out that despite the limited effectiveness of CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage) technology in reducing greenhouse gases, excessive investment in CCUS is actually delaying the energy transition of high-emission industries. They argued that the government's plan to heavily rely on CCUS technology to achieve its NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) violates the Constitution. Specifically, the Dubai Kimbap team argued that the CCUS-related portion of the 2035 NDC plan infringes upon citizens' environmental rights (Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution).
The second presentation, by “Team GG (meaning of "save earth, 지구를 지켜라")” (Kwon Nahyun, Moon Yoonji), proposed two types of lawsuits to protect fishermen suffering losses from fish deaths due to excessive sea temperature rises caused by climate change. The first lawsuit points out that the government's current climate crisis adaptation measures lack effective means to protect fishermen suffering losses from fish deaths due to high temperatures. It seeks to file a constitutional complaint against this governmental inaction.
The second lawsuit involves filing a related civil lawsuit and then requesting a constitutional review of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and the Act on Liability for Environmental Damage and Relief, which currently exclude damages caused by climate change from their scope of application. Team GG presented the concept of a broad “climate right”—defined as “the right to protection of human life, health, livelihood, equality, and future from the climate crisis”—arguing that the problematic administrative inaction and legal provisions violate the fishermen's climate rights.
The third presentation, by the “Paris Baguette Agreement” team (Moon Yunseo, Yoon Yeojong, Lee Sihyeon, Jo Eunseo), raised concerns about AI industry development disregarding climate and environmental impacts, proposing two lawsuits against domestic AI data center projects. The first involves filing an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of the approval decision for the data center construction project, citing defects in the environmental impact assessment during the approval process. The second strategy, in case the administrative lawsuit fails, involves simultaneously filing a civil tort damages claim against the corporation promoting the project and a small shareholder lawsuit under commercial law based on stranded asset risk. The Paris Baguette Agreement team emphasized the necessity of these lawsuits, pointing out that the massive scale of this AI data center would have a significant negative impact on the climate and environment. They also highlighted that procedural flaws related to resident consent were reported during the licensing process for the LNG combined-cycle power plant to be built within the data center.
Finally, the “Blue Sea” team (Koo Minji, Oh Jeongmin, Lee Gyuwon, Jo Hyeonggeun), presenting last, proposed a lawsuit seeking civil damages against a company considered a leader in the fast fashion industry. Specifically, the Blue Sea team targeted the following actions by the company for litigation: First, maintaining a business structure predicated on mass production and mass disposal of garments, emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases and causing various pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the citizens of the Republic of Korea. Second, it emphasizes that the company, while building consumer trust by highlighting eco-friendly changes, actually adopted a fast fashion business structure that contradicted this, causing mental harm to consumers. The Blue Sea team particularly stressed that filing a lawsuit against this company, a leader in the fast fashion industry, would serve as a warning message to the entire industry structure.
Following each presentation, the judges posed sharp questions. The participants' composed responses to the diverse inquiries were truly impressive. This session provided an opportunity to gain detailed insights into the litigation strategies and considerations the participants hadn't fully explained during their limited presentation time.
Following this, while the judges deliberated, Attorney Lee Kwanhaeng from SFOC delivered a special lecture titled “Career Paths for Climate Lawyers.”
It was an opportunity to broadly explore what activities lawyers can pursue in various roles to address the climate crisis and what competencies are required for such roles.
Finally, the time for the joint review and awards ceremony arrived. The “Dubai Kimbap” team and the “Blue Sea” team tied for third place. The Dubai Kimbap team was praised for their well-prepared lawsuit proposal on CCUS, a technically complex topic, based on extensive research. The Blue Sea team was commended for proposing a lawsuit addressing Scope 3 indirect emissions, which carried significant policy implications.
The team that secured second place was “Team GG.” They proposed a lawsuit with excellent policy implications, the type all judges wished to encourage. They received high praise for presenting a new interpretation of “climate rights,” going beyond existing Constitutional Court rulings.
The team that took the coveted first place was “Paris Baguette Agreement.” They received high praise for the exceptionally well-structured preliminary proposal based on detailed research into the target business, as well as for the excellent division of roles among team members.
This competition provided us with many ideas and renewed energy. We are deeply grateful to all participants and judges who devoted their time and energy to this event. We, the Climate Solutions Lawyers, will carefully consider the valuable ideas proposed here and continue to explore and implement various legal measures to effectively respond to the climate crisis.
