People v. Arctic Oil and Its Discontents:The Norwegian Paradox in Global Climateand Energy Justice

This contribution examines People v. Arctic Oil, the landmark Norwegian climate litigation challenging the expansion of petroleum exploration in the Barents Sea. Situating the case within the broader frameworks of climate justice and energy justice, the analysis highlights how the lawsuit sought to reconcile Norway’s international climate commitments with its continued reliance on fossil fuel extraction. Drawing comparisons with other strategic climate cases, particularly Urgenda, the chapter explores the legal foundations of the claim, including Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment and incorporates principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity. The case was initiated in 2016 by environmental organizations representing both present and future generations, challenging the legality of petroleum licenses granted shortly before Norway ratified the Paris Agreement. The claim relied on constitutional, environmental, and human rights arguments, invoking the precautionary principle and protections under the European Convention on Human Rights. Particular attention is devoted to the first-instance decision of the Oslo District Court (2018), which recognized the justiciability of Article 112 while simultaneously granting broad discretion to governmental petroleum policy. The court rejected arguments concerning the relevance of downstream (Scope 3) emissions and ultimately upheld the contested licenses. The analysis demonstrates how the judgment reflects the tensions between environmental constitutionalism and the economic significance of the petroleum sector in Norway. By examining the legal reasoning and institutional context of the case, the contribution highlights the challenges of using climate litigation as a tool for advancing climate and energy justice in resource-dependent states.