Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n and Nature and Youth v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Case no. 16-166674TVI-OTIR/06 (Oslo District Court) (4 January 2018)
Greenpeace Nordic Association and Natur og Ungdom (Nature & Youth) filed a case challenging licenses for offshore oil production granted by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.
In January, 2018, the Oslo District Court found Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution creates an enforceable right to a healthy environment. The court acknowledged that this right includes the right to a healthy climate.
STC4360-2018 de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casacion Civil, M.P. Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona, April 05, 2018:
Sentence C-035/16 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia (Alberto Castilla et al v. Colombia):
Citizens presented constitutional claims against several provisions of the laws that approved the 2010-2014 National Development Plan (Law 1450 of 2011) and the 2014-2018 National Development Plan (Law 1753 of 2015).
In Western Organization of Resource Councils et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al, several environmental organizations challenged a federal agency’s approval of revised Resource Management Plans (“RMPs”) for coal development in two areas covering millions of acres of public lands and federal mineral estates within the Powder River Basin.
On 7 February 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) published an Advisory Opinion and explained that “[t]his Opinion constitutes one of the first opportunities this Court has had to address, in an extended manner, the state obligations that arise from the need to protect the environment under the American Convention[.]”
In Wildearth Guardians, environmental organizations claimed that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did not adequately address greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal leases. In its environmental analysis, the BLM had concluded that there was no appreciable difference between the United States’ total carbon dioxide emissions under the proposed leases and the alternative of not developing the leases (the ‘no action alternative’). The BLM concluded that opting not to issue these coal mine leases was unlikely to “result in a decrease of U.S.