The Storting’s slippery slope
MANAGER
Norway’s institution for human rights carries unpopular messages in climate policy. Now the punishment comes from the Storting in the form of misleading, rude and rowdy criticism.
Manager: This is an editorial from Dagbladet, and expresses the newspaper’s views. Dagbladet’s political editor is responsible for the editorial.
Norwegian institution for human rights (NIM) was established in 2015. Norway had been given a lack of and sufficiently independent authority to ensure human rights. NIM was an answer to this.
It now seems that the parliamentary majority has had major problems with this institution – and is trying to undermine its authority.
NIM’s role is to provide legal assessments and input to the Storting and other authorities. According to the UN, climate change is one of the biggest threats to human rights, ie at the core of NIM’s mandate. Thus, NIM is in a position where they must, among other things, point out what consequences the laws may have for climate policy, and other areas that have climate consequences – such as oil policy.
As one of their first profiled contributions in the public, wrote NIM and extensive contributions in the so-called climate lawsuit. The state was sued for opening the Barents Sea to the southeast for exploration for oil and gas, and NIM’s assessment supported the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court came to a different conclusion, but NIM was right on a number of points, points of principle. Among other things, the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that climate issues were covered by section 112 of the Constitution, the so-called environmental section – and that the state has a duty to refrain from environmental interventions in violation of the section. The state may, for example, have a duty to refuse new oil and gas development for reasons of climate. In addition, the Supreme Court assumed that the emissions from the combustion of oil and gas lead to are part of studies and the basis for decisions before new development is adopted.
This has already had an impact on practical policy, far in line with NIM’s assessments. NIM stated in a report in March that the ruling in the Supreme Court related to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (MPE) must publish assessments of the consequences of emissions from the combustion of oil and gas, which the MPE has now followed up for some time.
This type of input from NIM, many in the Storting clearly fall heavily on their chests. This week, the Control and Constitution Committee was to almost routinely approve the annual report from NIM. That’s not how it went. In the annual report, the Supreme Court case is not a topic, but NIM recommends that the Storting be asked by the government to include the 1.5-degree target in the Climate Act to ensure the protection of the rights of younger generations. Norway has in a number of different international contexts committed itself to the 1.5-degree target. In a majority remark, the Conservatives, the Labor Party, the Center Party and Frp NIM punish. In a slippery slope of a dissemination of the proposal and the justification “lacks democratic support and is without coverage in the Norwegian legal tradition”.
In a news story in Aftenposten follows up committee chair Peter Frølich by calling NIM’s action in the climate lawsuit “activist”. It is an unreasonable and manipulative description. NIM has done its job by providing input in a case that is highly relevant to their area of responsibility. Frølich is also quoted as saying that “we, like the Supreme Court, completely disagree with NIM’s interpretation of the Constitution”. It makes no sense. As mentioned, the Supreme Court supported, on the contrary, many of the crucial assumptions about the possible significance of the Ground for climate policy.
Frølich he says does not want an “Americanization”, where the policy is formulated in the courts. It’s turning the matter upside down. NIM’s role is to recall what the Storting and the Norwegian authorities themselves have adopted and committed to, and point out what consequences it could have. It is also striking that the Storting does not shout when the Supreme Court takes action and decriminalises the use and use of doses for drug addicts, in line with the legislator’s signals, despite the fact that the laws have not yet been passed. The differential treatment shows that the attack on NIM is selective and unprincipled.
The art of making nausea
There is a reason for that to believe that the majority remark against NIM in reality is about this: The four parties feel threatened by NIM’s remarks about climate obligations in the legislation, and want to undermine the messenger who is the target of this inconvenient fact. Stamping NIM’s completely independent right and duty to record human rights-relevant legal assessments as “without democratic roots and outside the Norwegian legal tradition” is misleading, gross and rowdy.