1. Here is my comment on the Norwegian Supreme Court ruling on the Arctic oil drilling. Colleagues in Norway may correct me if I got things wrong. The SC essentially considered 3 grounds for cancelling the permit by Government: > @ChristinaVoigt2 @geirulf https://www.dw.com/en/norway-rejects-greenpeace-appeal-over-arctic-oil-exploration/a-56015500

2. Whether it violated the Constitution §112 on environmental protection and rights; whether it violated the European Convention on Human Rights, arts 2 & 8 (as implemented in the Constitution); and whether the decision-making involved procedural flaws (incl. poor assessments). >

3. On 1st point, I think the SC argues convincingly about not setting aside acts (not limited to legislation) by the Parliament by reference to the Constitution, unless there are obvious flaws or shortcomings in these acts (like not bothering about environmental issues at all). >

4. This respects the division of power in an accurate way. However, for administrative acts — including acts by the Government — the SC holds that the Constitution has a more direct impact by reducing the scope of discretion in decision-making so that the law should be ... >

5. ... interpreted in light of §112, in acts and decisions. It means that, as opposed to the acts by Parliament, the Government’s decisions should be reviewable on the merits under §112, and potentially be set aside if found to be outside the discretion given to the Government. >

6. However, rather than reviewing the Government’s decision to grant permits for oil drilling on the merits, the SC now holds that the Parliament was so closely involved in the decision-making that it abstains from reviewing it. This to me is unconvincing and appears as an ...>

7. ... easy way out for the SC to avoid reviewing on the merits whether the Government’s decision to allow for NEW oil drilling was indeed in accordance with the Constitution. Such a review would have been highly interesting and important, but now the Government thus got ... >

8. ... away too easily. The 2nd ground was whether the Government’s decision violated ECHR, Arts 2 and 8. It would have been possible for the SC to take a stricter approach on this issue, but I agree that the case is quite different from the Dutch #Urgenda case. Finally, ...>

9. ... while the majority of the SC judges did not find any procedural error in the decision, a minory of dissenting judges held that the flawed impact assessment on climate change made the decision void and that the Government would have to make a new decision based on ... >

10. ...accurate information. My last point is on the surprising SC obiter dictum, that Norway has no responsibility at all as regards CO2 emissions of Norwegian oil exported to other countries. This is too simple a conclusion on where today’s international law stands and is...>

11. ... developing (but I assume the Norwegian Government appreciates it). Moreover, that statement is not necessary for the ruling itself — given that the SC failed to review the Government’s decision on the merits in light of §112. This is the main disappointment of the ruling.