What just happened?
Despite Norway’s green credentials, its wealth has mostly been accumulated from huge oil exports.[LE1] Norway’s Nature and Youth group along with Greenpeace Norway are challenging what they describe as ‘double standards’, in a lawsuit disputing government issued oil licenses. [1]
What does this mean?
The lawsuit is contesting the 10 government-issued oil licenses, which enable the exploration of the Barents Sea. [2] The environmental groups seek to invalidate these licenses on the grounds that they breach Section 112 of the Constitution’s environmental section.[3] Section 112 states that “every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained” and that the right should be safeguarded for future generations.[4] However, the State believes that the allocation of permits is valid. [5]
The environmentalist groups also argue that new oil activities would contravene the 2015 Paris climate accord, which Norway signed.[6] Since the use of additional petroleum resources would take Norway past the agreed climate goal (a maximum of 1.5 degrees warming).[7]
Wondering why a Norwegian court case matters for the entire planet? Let Emma Thompson explain.
However, the trend among a large proportion of Norway’s public is in support of the oil drilling.[8] This may be partially due to the petroleum industry being Norway’s largest industry. It is credited for transforming the country from a poor fishing state to the owner of the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.[9]
How does it impact the legal sector?
The case has been ongoing since 2016 when Greenpeace and Nature and Youth first tried to sue the Norwegian state. This initially went to the Oslo District Court in November 2017. However, the judge did rule that the environmental section is the provision of a right and that climate is covered by the provision, i.e., they have a case for suing using section 112 of the Constitution.
The groups then lost at the Borgarting Court of Appeal in November 2019. [10] Although, the court did rule that Norway has responsibility for emissions from the oil that is exported abroad.[11] Due to being able to appeal twice in Norway, the case was appealed to the Supreme court[12] and is now being processed.
The case builds on an emerging surge of climate change litigation from environmentalists.[13] There is a rising concern around environmental issues becoming a business risk, whether financially or ethically. Although firms are obliged to act under their client’s wishes, they should be looking into how to incorporate Green clauses into contracts and how best to advise clients on the business impact of increasing climate change pressure.
If the plaintiffs win the case it could have a major impact on Norway’s future oil production as well as the structuring of the Norwegian economy. If the Barents Sea exploration licenses are determined to be contrary to Article 112 then it would be difficult to tell which parts of Norwegian petroleum policy are not.
Written by Isabella Hunter
Assessing firms:
#Glittertind #NortonRoseFulbright #BurgesSalmon #EvershedsSutherland #Allen&Overy #DeightonPierceGlynn #LeighDay #GlowlingWLG
References:
[1] Matilda Welin, ‘The young Norwegians taking their own country to court over oil’ (BBC News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54604738> accessed on 18 Dec 2020
[2] Trine Jonassen ‘Oljesøksmål fra miljøorganisasjoner til retten’ (‘Oil Lawsuits from environmental organisations to the court’) (High North News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/oljesoksmal-fra-miljoorganisasjoner-til-retten
[3] Trine Jonassen ‘Oljesøksmål fra miljøorganisasjoner til retten’ (‘Oil Lawsuits from environmental organisations to the court’) (High North News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/oljesoksmal-fra-miljoorganisasjoner-til-retten
[4] Alister Doyle, ‘Norway’s supreme court to hear landmark case on Artic il drilling’ (Chine Dialogue Ocean, 2 Nov 2020) < https://chinadialogueocean.net/15675-arctic-oil-drilling-norway-supreme-court/ > accessed 22 Dec 2020
[5] Trine Jonassen ‘Oljesøksmål fra miljøorganisasjoner til retten’ (‘Oil Lawsuits from environmental organisations to the court’) (High North News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/oljesoksmal-fra-miljoorganisasjoner-til-retten
[6] Greenpeace International, ‘Taking Norway’s government back to court for climate change’ (5 Nov 2019) <https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/25711/taking-norways-government-back-to-court-for-climate-lawsuit/> accessed 18 Dec 2020
[7] Klimasøksmål, ‘Om Søksmålet’ (2020) < https://www.xn--klimasksml-95a8t.no/om-saken/> accessed 19 Dec 2020
[8] Matilda Welin, ‘The young Norwegians taking their own country to court over oil’ (BBC News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54604738> accessed on 18 Dec 2020
[9] Matilda Welin, ‘The young Norwegians taking their own country to court over oil’ (BBC News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54604738> accessed on 18 Dec 2020
[10] Trine Jonassen ‘Oljesøksmål fra miljøorganisasjoner til retten’ (‘Oil Lawsuits from environmental organisations to the court’) (High North News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.highnorthnews.com/nb/oljesoksmal-fra-miljoorganisasjoner-til-retten
[11] Agence France Presse, ‘Norway Begins Review of Artic Oil Licenses’ (4 Nov 2020) <https://www.barrons.com/news/norway-court-begins-review-of-arctic-oil-licenses-01604492111> accessed 18 Dec 2020
[12]Matilda Welin, ‘The young Norwegians taking their own country to court over oil’ (BBC News, 4 Nov 2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54604738> accessed on 18 Dec 2020
[13] Henrik Pryser Libell and Isabella Kwai ’Norway's Supreme Court Hears Rights Challenge to Artic Oil Drilling’ (The New York Times, 5 Nov 2020) <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/world/europe/norway-supreme-court-climate-change.html> accessed 22 Dec 2020
can you just put a line in about the lawsuit? What is it which parties are involved, what is the main issue? [LE1] [LE1]
Disclaimer: This article (and any information accessed through links in this article) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.