People v Arctic Oil: Context, Judgement, and Takeaways for Future Climate Litigation

Abstract

The decision of the Norwegian Supreme Court in People v Arctic Oil deals with the question of whether licensing decisions for oil exploration are invalid for not accounting for combustion emissions from oil exports. Notably, the plaintiffs invoke the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment for challenging such decisions. As the case made its way from the District Court to the Supreme Court, it developed distinct jurisprudence on the scope of rights and the role of impact assessment with respect to climate harm. At the time of writing this chapter, a claim based on similar facts is pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This Article analyses the judgement within the political context of Norwegian oil policy, focusing on the policy coalition that preferred a ‘weak sustainability’ to a new policy coalition in favour of stronger environmental protection. It then suggests two takeaways for future climate litigation: the potential of the right to a healthy environment in shaping climate policy, and the logic in viewing extraterritorial emissions as a domestic policy concern.

Keywords: climate change, energy policy, environmental law, climate policy, constitutional law

JEL Classification: K32, K33