THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLIMATE LAW IN JUDICIAL PRACTICE: THE EXPERIENCE OF NORWAY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

Abstract

The article analyzes the role of courts in the development of climate law from a legal perspective, drawing on the experience of Norway and the United Kingdom. The author examines the application of environmental provisions of the Constitution in Norway in the context of the case “People vs. Arctic Oil”. The article states that while the Supreme Court acknowledges that climate change is a real and serious threat, it refrains from overturning the government’s new oil licenses, recognizes a wide “margin of appreciation” and places climate claims more within the realm of political decision-making. In contrast, the UK section analyses decisions in the Finch case and projects in the North Sea such as Jackdaw and Rosebank, where courts interpret environmental impact assessment as a key legal tool for implementing climate commitments, rather than as a narrow technical procedure. In particular, it requires consideration of “downstream” emissions – emissions resulting from the subsequent burning of extracted oil and gas – and this approach significantly limits government discretion. The author concludes that, although both countries are bound by the same international climate regime, Norway is more cautious, while the United Kingdom is developing a more proactive model of judicial review that links human rights and climate obligations.