Environmental justice in South Korea has a relatively short history compared to other countries in the west. As a result of rapid industrialization, people started to have awareness on pollution, and from the environmental discourses the idea of Environmental justice appeared in late 1980s.[1]
South Korea experienced rapid economic growth (which is commonly referred to as the 'Miracle on the Han River') in the 20th century as a result of industrialization policies adapted by Park Chung Hee after 1970s. The policies and social environment had no room for environmental discussions, which aggravated the pollution in the country.[2]
Beginning and evolution of the South Korean environmental movement
Environmental movements in South Korea started from air pollution campaigns. As the notion of environment pollution spread, the focus on environmental activism shifted from existing pollution to preventing future pollution, and the organizations eventually started to criticize the government policies that are neglecting the environmental issues.[3] The concept of environmental justice was introduced in South Korea among the discussions of the environment after the 1990s. While the environmental organizations analyzed the pollution condition in South Korea, they noticed that the environmental problems were inequitably focused especially in regions where people with low social and economic status were concentrated. This is because from the 1960s to the 1990s, the government of Korea prioritized economic growth over environmental concerns.
The problems of environmental injustice have arisen from environment-related organizations, but approaches to solve the problems were greatly supported by the government, which developed various policies and launched institutions. These actions helped raise awareness of environmental justice in South Korea. Existing environmental policies were modified to cover environmental justice issues. Despite the actions formed to help raise awareness of environmental justice in South Korea, South Korea still faces problems today such as Waste facility placement in low-income communities and Ulsan and Onsan Industrial Pollution.
Key Organizations and Early Movements
The foundational organized efforts for environmental protection began in 1981 with the establishment of the Korea Pollution Research Institute (KPRI), followed by the Korea Anti-Pollution Movement Association (KAPMA) in 1988, which significantly raised public awareness of local environmental hazards.The transition to democracy following the June Democracy Movement of 1987 created a favorable political environment for the growth of diverse civil society organizations (CSOs).[4] A major turning point and catalyst for nationwide organization was the Nakdong River phenol contamination incident in 1991.In this incident, a multinational corporation's negligent discharge of phenol into a major water source resulted in widespread public outrage. This event demonstrated the potential for citizens to unite and influence corporate and government policy.[5] This momentum led to the unification of eight major regional and national environmental groups in 1993, establishing the Korean Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM). KFEM quickly grew to become the largest environmental NGO in South Korea, encompassing dozens of local chapters and specialized research centers. Other prominent organizations that emerged during this era include Green Korea United and the Citizens' Movement for Environmental Justice (CMEJ), each focusing on issues ranging from local land conservation to national policy advocacy and environmental law.[6]
Struggles for Justice in Energy Policy
Pre-Fukushima History and Distributional Justice
While the anti-nuclear movement gained massive public traction after 2011, opposition to nuclear development began much earlier, often focusing on the siting of nuclear waste facilities. A landmark victory occurred in the mid-1990s when environmental groups and local residents successfully blocked the government's plan to build a nuclear waste dump on Gureop Island.[7] This campaign, which mobilized thousands of people, successfully framed the issue as one of distributional injustice—forcing a local community to bear the risk for national benefit. The movement eventually forced the government to admit that a capable fault line ran beneath the island, demonstrating the power of grassroots movements combined with scientific advocacy against powerful state-backed projects.[8]
The Emergence of Talhaek (Denuclearization)
The nature of the movement fundamentally changed on March 11, 2011, when the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster in Japan prompted widespread public concern in South Korea over nuclear safety. The disaster, occurring in a nearby nation, created a sense of immediate vulnerability and fueled calls for a systematic transition away from nuclear energy.[9] This crisis gave rise to the concept of "脫核" (talhaek, meaning “denuclearization”). The talhaek movement broadened the scope of activism from merely opposing new plant construction to advocating for an entirely new social system independent of nuclear power Its focus expanded to cover[10]:
Energy Transition: Advocating for a comprehensive shift to renewable energy sources.
Energy Justice: Linking nuclear power issues to broader debates on the unequal distribution of energy burdens.
Contamination Awareness: Increasing public scrutiny of the safety of imported food and domestic marine products due to potential radioactive contamination.
This comprehensive approach was highlighted in the 2014 struggle against the construction of high-voltage transmission towers in Miryang, which were necessary to connect a new nuclear power plant (Shin Kori) to the grid. The Miryang resistance, involving elderly residents and activists, powerfully framed the issue as one of energy justice and human rights, connecting national energy policy to local suffering.[11]
Procedural Justice: The Shin Kori 5 and 6 Deliberation
Public sentiment against nuclear power culminated in 2017 when a national consultation was launched regarding the construction of Shin Kori Nuclear Power Plant Units 5 and 6. This process is considered a landmark case for Deliberative democracy in South Korea, aiming to secure procedural justice in energy decision-making. The Shin Kori 5 and 6 Reactor Public Deliberation Committee undertook a systematic process to resolve the conflict: 1. Selection: 500 participants (471 ultimately participated) were randomly selected from 20,000 volunteers, ensuring demographic and opinion balance across the national population. 2. Deliberation: Over a 33-day period, participants engaged in intensive dialogue, including a three-day residential debate. 3. Transparency: The committee ensured neutrality by establishing a communication council and publicly disclosing all discussions and final decisions. The process established a new model for public engagement in large-scale energy policy decisions, supplementing traditional representative democracy with a robust participatory mechanism. [12]
The Regulatory Injustice Leading to Health Disaster
Disaster and Institutional Failure
The Humidifier disinfectant disaster in South Korea began in 2011 when medical staff at Asan Medical Center reported unexplained, severe lung diseases, particularly among pregnant women and infants. Investigation identified the cause: toxic chemicals—primarily Polyhexamethylene Guanidine (PHMG), but also Chloromethylisothiazolinone (CMIT) and Methylisothiazolinone (MIT)—used in popular humidifier disinfectants. These chemicals, designed to kill microorganisms, were inhaled when dispersed as an aerosol. The incident became the largest product liability disaster in South Korean history, resulting in thousands of confirmed deaths and injuries. [13] The failure stemmed partly from a regulatory loophole: the toxic chemicals were initially classified as industrial products, exempting them from the rigorous safety standards applied to household consumer goods.[14] Manufacturers, notably Oxy Reckitt Benckiser (Oxy) and Aekyung Industrial, initially failed to acknowledge responsibility, exacerbating the trauma for victims.[15]
Legal Milestones and State Accountability
The victims and their families, supported by major environmental and civic groups like the Korea Center for Environmental Health and the Korean Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM), mounted a sustained campaign for accountability, demanding both corporate and state liability.
Legislative Justice: The movement successfully lobbied the National Assembly for legislative reform. This led to the enactment of the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by Humidifier Disinfectants[16] in 2017 and subsequent amendments in 2020 that expanded the scope of recognized health damage and eased the burden of proof for victims.[17]
Judicial Justice: The legal battle continued for over a decade. In 2023, a South Korean court for the first time recognized legal liability for “asthma induced by humidifier disinfectants.”Most significantly, in June 2024, the Supreme Court of South Korea upheld a ruling that recognized partial state responsibility for the disaster. This monumental decision marked the first official acknowledgment of government accountability for failing to regulate toxic household products. The judgment solidified the understanding that the disaster was a social tragedy resulting from a failure of both corporate ethics and government oversight.[18] In 2025, the Ministry of Environment announced follow-up measures to refine the relief system, reflecting the ongoing societal commitment to compensating victims and strengthening institutional measures.[19] Also, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has decided to initiate a conciliation process regarding an appeal filed against Oxy for violations of consumer protection, among other reasons, concerning the humidifier disinfectant tragedy. This procedure is based on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), an international standard (without legal binding force) that imposes certain social responsibilities on multinational corporations.[20]
Recognition and government support
Environmental justice began to be widely recognized in the 1990s through policy making and researches of related institutions. For example, the Ministry of Environment, which was founded in 1992, launched Citizen's Movement for Environmental Justice (CMEJ) to raise awareness of the problem and figure out appropriate plans.[21] As a part of its activities, Citizen's Movement for Environmental Justice (CMEJ) held Environmental Justice forum in 1999, to gather and analyze the existing studies on the issue which were done sporadically by various organizations. CMEJ started as a small organization, but it is expanding. In 2002, CMEJ had more than five times the numbers of members and three times the budget it had in the beginning year.[1][22] Environmental justice is a growing issue in South Korea. Although the issue is not yet widely recognized compared to other countries, many organizations beginning to recognize the issue.[23]
Development issues
Environmental injustice is still an ongoing problem. One example is the construction of Saemangeum Seawall. The construction of Saemangeum Seawall, which is the world's longest dyke (33 kilometers) runs between Yellow Sea and Saemangeum estuary, was part of a government project initiated in 1991.[24] The project raised concerns about the destruction of the ecosystem and taking away the local residential regions. It caught the attention of environmental justice activists because the main victims were the low-income fishing population and their future generations. This is considered an example of environmental injustice which was caused by the execution of exclusive development-centered policy. The other example is the Onsan and Ulsan Industrial Complex Pollution Case. This environmental injustice case is considered to be one of South Korea's earliest cases being established in 1970 as part of South Korea's industrialization strategy. South Korea's dictator in 1970, Park Chung Hee, decided to support expansion of a heavy-chemical industry to develop and modernize the country's economy, to shift away from the dependence on imports. From 1974 onwards, an area of 2,000 ha in Onsan to the south of Ulsan became home to industrial complexes such as chemical factories, heavy metal industries, and contamination sites. This eventually led to the corruption of Ulsan and Onsan as the chemicals leaked from the factories and industries during 1982 and 1984.[25] This caused the hospitalization of more than 100 residents. The residents near the chemical area suffered from an infection and disease called the "Onsan illness" which was caused by high concentrations and exposure to mercury and cadmium. A Japanese scientist confirmed that the "Onsan illness" was the Korean version of the "Itai-Itai illness", which was also caused by concentrations of heavy metal elements such as cadmium.[26] The government learned the severity of this issue, created tighter industrial regulations, and supported finance to affected residents. However, this was insufficient remedy for the damage that was caused by the "Onsan disease" and the region of Onsan and Ulsan is still considered to be heavily polluted today. This Onsan pollution case played a significant role in shaping South Korea's environmental justice movement.
The construction of Seoul-Incheon canal also raised environmental justice controversies.[27] The construction took away the residential regions and farming areas of the local residents. Also, the environment worsened in the area because of the appearance of wet fogs which was caused by water deprivation and local climate changes caused by the construction of canal. The local residents, mostly people with weak economic basis, were severely affected by the construction and became the main victims of such environmental damages. While the socially and economically weak citizens suffered from the environmental changes, most of the benefits went to the industries and conglomerates with political power.
Construction of industrial complex was also criticized in the context of environmental justice. The conflict in Wicheon region is one example. The region became the center of controversy when the government decided to build industrial complex of dye houses, which were formerly located in Daegu metropolitan region. As a result of the construction, Nakdong River, which is one of the main rivers in South Korea, was contaminated and local residents suffered from environmental changes caused by the construction.[28][29]
Youth and Civic Climate Justice Movements
Since the early 2020s, a new generation of youth and civic organizations have become key voices in South Korea’s environmental justice movement, as public criticism grew over the government’s insufficient carbon neutrality measures.[30] In March 2020, a group of young activists filed the country’s first constitutional lawsuit against the government, arguing that inadequate climate policies violated their basic rights to life and healthy environment.[31] The case, supported by the Korean Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM) and Youth4ClimateAction[32], marked the beginning of the legal and social campaign to promote intergenerational climate justice.
These movements show that how environmental justice in South Korea has expanded beyond concerns about industrial pollution and regional inequality to include the unequal effects of climate change. Youth activists argue that those least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, particularly young people and future generations, are likely to face the most serious consequences. Their actions have sparked national discussions about fairness in climate policy and influenced debates on South Korea’s 2050 Carbon Neutrality Roadmap.[33]
In April 2024, the Seoul Administrative Court held its first public hearing on the case, which marked as a rare example of climate litigation in Asia.[34] Later that year, the Constitutional Court ruled that South Korea’s climate law violated the rights of future generations and called for stronger government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[35] The increasing participation of civic and grassroots organizations shows how environmental justice in South Korea is continue to expand beyond pollution and industrial conflicts toward climate justice and institutional reform.
↑ Archived 2017-03-20 at the Wayback MachineKoreascience: A Policy Study to Preserve the Water Quality through the Activation of Local Autonomy, Accessed 2015-8-10.
↑ Choony, Kim. (1997) The Case Study of Environmental issues in Korea, Accessed 2015-8-10.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
