«Det norske paradokset» i Klimasøksmål Arktis: ein rettsleg analyse av økonomiske vurderingar

Klimasøksmål Arktis is the first and only climate lawsuit brought in Norway. In this litigation, the plaintiffs raised strong criticism of what they perceived as Norway’s paradoxical policy of expanding petroleum extraction in the Barents Sea. Among other arguments, the plaintiffs pointed out that the economic assessments conducted by the government regarding the southeastern Barents Sea contained a number of significant errors. This argument may appear decisive to the case. According to independent researchers, opening new petroleum fields in the Barents Sea would not be profitable from a socio-economic perspective, implying that the decision to authorize new developments could be considered unjustifiable. This issue was examined both in the 2018 judgment of the Oslo District Court and in the 2020 judgment of the Borgarting Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, both courts concluded that the government's assessments could be defended despite the identified errors. At the same time, the courts did not undertake a substantive legal evaluation of those errors, and this aspect has remained relatively overlooked in the commentary surrounding the judgments. Taking Klimasøksmål Arktis as its point of departure, this article seeks to provide a clearer understanding of judicial review of economic assessments in climate litigation. In this field, legal instruments remain under-theorized, a problem that affects not only Norwegian law but legal systems more generally. Comparative law may serve as an important interpretive tool in environmental impact assessments and in balancing climate interests against economic interests. Reflecting on these issues can provide deeper insight into both the possibilities and limitations of judicial review, while also helping to explain some of the challenges associated with adjudicating climate-related disputes.