Youth Petitioners et al. v. Executive Yuan (Constitutional Case)

On June 5, 2024, a group of 30 petitioners—primarily youth climate activists, academics, and environmental advocates—filed a petition with the Taiwan Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that the central government’s failure to adopt a clear and legally binding 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target violates constitutional rights and obligations. The petition is supported by Greenpeace Taiwan and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights. The challenge targets the Executive Yuan’s “2050 Net-Zero Emissions Target and Twelve Key Strategies,” arguing that the government’s climate roadmap lacks enforceability, scientific rigor, and intermediate milestones. The petitioners allege that this policy vacuum undermines Taiwan’s obligations under the Climate Change Response Act and infringes on constitutional rights including the rights to life, health, work, equality, dignity, and intergenerational equity, as protected under Articles 7, 10, 15, 18, and 23 of the Constitution, as well as constitutional provisions on social justice and environmental protection (Articles 147–153, 171–172). The April 2024 supplementary brief strengthens the petitioners’ claims by integrating updated scientific evidence from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report and modeling from Climate Action Tracker and Climate Analytics, showing that Taiwan’s policies are inconsistent with a 1.5°C-aligned trajectory. It emphasizes the urgent need for a 43% reduction by 2030 relative to 2005 levels and situates Taiwan’s responsibility within its high per capita emissions and industrial profile. The brief draws on comparative case law from Germany (Neubauer), the Netherlands (Urgenda), Pakistan (Leghari), and others, arguing that constitutional courts elsewhere have recognized that climate inaction violates fundamental rights and that Taiwanese courts must follow suit. The May 2024 brief further responds to anticipated governmental defenses by rejecting the idea that administrative discretion or legislative delay can excuse omissions that result in structural violations of rights. It offers a detailed interpretation of the Climate Change Response Act, asserting that the statute implicitly requires not only a 2050 goal but also enforceable near-term measures. The brief also introduces evidence from the 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report to demonstrate the inadequacy of deferring meaningful action until mid-century. The petitioners ask the Court to declare the current lack of a binding 2030 target unconstitutional and to direct the government to establish scientifically and legally robust reduction pathways consistent with Taiwan’s fair share of global climate action. They argue that delay will irreversibly undermine the possibility of meeting the 2050 net-zero target, with especially severe consequences for younger and future generations. The case invites the Taiwan Constitutional Court to join a growing transnational jurisprudence recognizing the duty of states to act decisively on climate change to protect human rights and uphold constitutional commitments to sustainability and justice.