The Importance of the Norwegian Case for Climate Justice
6 Aralık 2022
Mustafa Yadigâr Akbaş
The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to humanity. To understand this crisis, the impact of which is increasing day by day, one of the most effective tools is climate lawsuits. Individuals and environmentally friendly organizations sue companies that harm nature and the governments that allow harm to nature. The most significant factor in the governments’ making anti-environmental decisions is economical and growth concerns. In this article, the lawsuit in focus was filed by Greenpeace, indigenous activists, youth groups, and James Hansen, who is an employer of NASA, against the Norwegian Government’s plans for Arctic oil exploration in the period between 2015 and 2016 (“Norway Faces Climate Lawsuit,” 2016). Although it was a resounding case in Norway at the beginning, it aroused repercussions worldwide over time. Initially, this article provides information about the issue; then, it will examine the case in environmental justice terms. For example, since a lawsuit is being mentioned, there must be a “violation of rights.” The violations of rights in environmental cases are based on justice, so the problem of “distributive and procedural justice” will also be mentioned in this case. It will then be characterized by whether the claim was filed before or after the start of the problem by using the terms “proactive and reactive litigation.” Eventually, according to the outcome of the case, it will be discussed whether it has a “direct or indirect effect” on climate justice.
Alleging that the Norwegian Government’s authorization of oil exploration in the Barents Sea in 2015 is contrary to the Paris Climate Agreement signed in the same year and Article 112, which was accepted in 2014, guaranteeing that everyone can live in a healthy environment; groups, including Greenpeace, decide to seek their rights in court. The plaintiffs stated that their rights were violated and wanted 13 companies’ oil exploration licenses to be cancelled (“Norway Faces Climate Lawsuit”, 2016). The judge stated that there was no violation of rights and concluded against those who are environmentally friendly. Then, although the groups tried their luck in another local court, they could not get a positive result. The court took the same decision as the previous court that “there is no violation of rights,” so the group had to bring the case to the higher court in 2020. The higher court also took the same decision as the local courts and disappointed climate activists (“Norway Rejects Greenpeace Appeal”, n.d.). The activists applied to the European Court of Human Rights, stating that this decision of the Norwegian Government violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which mentions the right to life, and Article 8, which mentions the respect for private life (“Norveç’in İkilemi”, n.d.). Recently, the Norwegian Government informed the European Court of Human Rights that it should drop the case because Russia attacked Ukraine because of oil. In addition, the Government underlined that oil in Norway would become more valuable in the next ten years. Greenpeace stated that the decision taken by the Norwegian Government in 2015 could not be justified by a crisis in 2022 (“The Norwegian State Calls”, 2022). The European Court of human rights has yet to conclude.
The article called “Climate Justice: A New Social Movement for Atmospheric Rights” by Jethro Pettit (2009) quotes India Climate Justice Forum (2002) and points out that climate change is a right issue. Also, the panel, which was broadcast on TRT World Channel in 2019, points out that the climate crisis is a violation of human rights. The article and the panel draw attention to the fact that every person has the right to live in a healthy area, but the effects of the climate crisis take away this right from people, and not everyone is equal in escaping from these effects. This situation can be explained by the concept of “vulnerability” that Gordon Walker (2012) stated in his article. Walker defines vulnerability as not everyone being affected equally by changing environmental conditions, but some people are more affected, such as elderly people, LGBTQIA, women, disabled people, and the indigenous community. Those people already have disadvantages in their societies, so that they will be more affected by the climate crisis. For instance, while someone without a walking disability can take their backpack and escape the effects of the climate crisis, it will be more difficult for someone who uses a wheelchair to escape from these effects or the cost for a transgender Latin woman to escape the effects of the climate crisis will be far greater than for a white American man because of the existing prejudices in society. Also, Walker (2012) emphasizes the fact that people’s needs will differ depending on their situation. In other words, while the disabled individual mentioned in the previous example may need private transportation, the American white man may only need money.
The Norwegian Government is clearly in violation of rights by ignoring Article 112, which was put in place in 2014, which guarantees a clean environment for everyone, and the Paris Climate Agreement it signed in 2015. The right to live in a clean environment, one of the most basic human rights, has been taken from the people living in the region, and this situation has revealed the problem of justice. Distributional justice is defined by David Schlosberg (2007) as the balanced usage of all kinds of economic goods or income regardless of factors such as social status, age, or gender of individuals in the society. Lawsuits brought against the Norwegian Government can be defined as people with distributive justice problems trying to claim their rights in court because distributive justice carries the principle of equal enjoyment. In this case, while the people of the region do not gain any benefit from the oil exploration activities for which the operating license is given by the Norwegian Government, they suffer directly and indirectly from the damages given to the environment. Moreover, it can be said that there is a procedural justice issue as well. Schlosberg (2007) explains procedural justice as having a balanced power while making decisions. The Norwegian Government did not ask anyone, including the indigenous community, while giving oil exploration licenses to companies. This is proof that the people of the region are procedural injustice.
Chris Hilson (2010) defines the concept of proactive litigation as the lawsuit filed before the problem starts, while he defines reactive lawsuits as the lawsuits filed after the problem begins officially. The lawsuit against the Norwegian Government is a proactive one, as the Government has not officially recognized a problem.
The courts are one of the essential tools for the regulation to be made against the climate crisis, as underlined by Jolene Lin (2012). The climate lawsuits won are a guiding tool for the regulations that should be brought by the governments, the lawsuits that are lost or that have not been concluded yet also have an indirect effect by informing the public about the climate crisis. Although the Norwegian Government took a negative decision against environmental defenders, not only Norwegian citizens but also the whole world became conscious of this issue due to the news. Climate lawsuits reveal the fact that the climate crisis should be taken more seriously by society, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. That’s why even if the activist group lost the case in the European Court of Human Rights too, everyone who knows about the case, especially Norwegian society, will look at the climate crisis from a different perspective.
Siobhan McInerney-Lankford (2009) points out that the climate crisis is related to the right to have a healthy and clean environment. Therefore, violations related to the environment are a violation of human rights. The lawsuit filed against the Norwegian Government by Greenpeace, indigenous people, and a NASA employee also demonstrate that climate lawsuits are proof that even seemingly green-friendly countries fail to manage the climate crisis and commit many human rights violations in this regard. The focal point of the case is the problem of distributive justice, and the judiciary adds to this problem, the problem of procedural justice, by concluding the case against those who are environmentally friendly. Although the outcome of the case brought to the European Court of Human Rights is unclear at the moment, it is an indisputable fact that the case has had a massive impact on climate crisis awareness, even indirectly, so there is no loss in climate lawsuits for environmental justice.
References
Hilson, C. (2010). Climate change litigation: A social movement perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1680362
Lankford, S. (2009). Climate change and human rights: An introduction to legal issues. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 33(2), 431-439. https://harvardelr.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/12/2019/07/33.2- McInerneyLankford.pdf
Lin, J. (2012). Climate change and the courts. Legal Studies, 32(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2011.00206.x
Norway faces climate lawsuit over Arctic oil exploration plans. (2016, October 18). The Guardian. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/18/norway-faces-climate-lawsuit-over-oil-exploration-plans
Norway rejects Greenpeace appeal over Arctic oil exploration. (n.d.). DW.COM. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.dw.com/en/norway-rejects-greenpeace-appeal-over-arctic-oil-exploration/a-56015500
Norveç’in ikilemi: İklim değişikliğiyle mücadele ya da zenginliğini borçlu olduğu fosil yakıt ihracatı. (n.d.). Anadolu Ajansı. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/cevre/norvecin-ikilemi-iklim-degisikligiyle-mucadele-ya-da-zenginligini-borclu-oldugu-fosil-yakit-ihracati/2380049
Pettit, J. (2009). Climate justice: A new social movement for atmospheric rights. IDS Bulletin, 35(3), 102-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00142.x
Schlosberg, D. (2007). Distribution and beyond: Conceptions of justice in contemporary theory and practice. In Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (pp. 11-40). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286294.003.0002
The Norwegian State calls for rejection of Arctic oil case by European Court of Human Rights. (2022, April 28). Greenpeace International. Retrieved May 18, 2022, from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/53505/norwegian-state-calls-for-rejection-of-arctic-oil-case-by-european-court-of-human-rights/
Walker, G. (2012). Making claims: Justice, evidence and process. In Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics (pp. 39-75).