Klimasøksmålet og Grunnloven § 112. Hva rommer tiltaksplikten i 3. ledd?
Journal article, Peer reviewed
MetadataVis full innførsel
OriginalversjonNordisk miljörättslig tidskrift. 2019, 11 (1), 47-67.
Even though the plaintiffs lost the legal writ in the Oslo District Court, after alleging that the 23rd licensing round awards were not valid as they violated Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, the Attorney General’s claims that he did not consider the Constitution § 112 as a rights were rejected. On the taking of measures for the implementation of the rights there are, however, four weaknesses in the judgment. First, the term ‘adequate’ measures is too imprecise to qualify the measures and the term ‘effective’ measures is better in identifying the measures able to achieve the climate targets. Second, the reliance upon the international system of emissions trading and debates in the Norwegian parliament were considered by the court as adequate for the duty to take measures in Section 112 to be complied with. Third, the emissions resulting from the consumption outside of Norway were considered as ‘not relevant’ for assessing whether Section 112 of the Constitution and the Norwegian Petroleum Act had been complied with. Fourth, the court linked the scope of the measures taken in accordance with paragraph 3 of Section 112 as decisive for the determing the existence of the rights under the first and second paragraphs, as the measures must bring the enchoarchment ‘down to’ the permitted threshold. The article provides a comprehensive human rights assessment of climate change in light of Section 112 of the Constitution, and also the requirements of the (previous) regulation on investigations, that the article finds have not been complied with.