The Role of Climate Advisory Opinions in Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

By Robin Happel*

Three international courts have recently issued landmark advisory opinions on climate change in a thrust towards reshaping the climate change legal landscape. The advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have already been cited in domestic courts from Colombia to Canada, and recently shaped an influential ruling in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Although Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway fell short of ending drilling in the Arctic, the Court’s reasoning set a powerful precedent for holding states accountable regarding future fossil fuel licensing.

Case Background

Alongside youth plaintiffs, Greenpeace filed suit against Norway arguing that the expansion of drilling in the Arctic violated their fundamental human rights. U.N. Special Rapporteurs David R. Boyd and Marcos A. Orellana also submitted an amicus brief citing, inter alia, IPCC reports and obligations under the Paris Agreement. In addition to the climate impacts of drilling, Greenpeace has also emphasized the harm to the Indigenous Sámi people, who rely on Arctic ecosystems for their cultural survival. Plaintiffs argued,inter alia, that drilling discriminates against youth and Indigenous peoples in violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The parties filed a petition to the European Court of Human Rights in 2021, and judgment was rendered in October 2025. First of all, the Court dismissed the claims advanced in relation to the right to life (Article 2), the right to an effective remedy (Article 13), and the right to non-discrimination (Article 14) – first, on the basis of decisions regarding the right to life and climate change (paras. 284-285), second on the basis that the domestic remedies had been effective (paras. 354, 366), and, third, due to lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies (pars. 352-353). Furthermore, the Court dismissed the claims advanced by the individual applicants, including young people and Sámi peoples, based on a lack of fulfilling the criteria for individual victims status set out in KlimaSeniorinnen (para. 306). The Court did, however, accept standing on behalf of the two claimant organisations, Greenpeace Nordic and Friends of the Earth, which it considered to be acting on behalf of the general public and future generations (paras. 308-311). Thus, the Court further held that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were inadmissible except for certain claims under Article 8, the right to private and family life, which it, however, considered not violated 8 (para. 366 et seq.) The Court’s reasoning in finding no violation rested on Norway’s ability to block oil extraction at a later stage in the development process, and confidence that a more robust environmental impact assessment (EIA)  would be conducted (paras. 335-337). Put more simply, this decision illustrates the high bar to reach the European Court of Human Rights, and the difficulties of demonstrating standing and exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paras. 303, 352). 

Although, ostensibly a setback, the Court reiterated that states have an obligation under Article 8 to “ensure effective protection of those within its jurisdiction by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change” (para. 314) and generally affirmed the duty to conduct comprehensive EIAs in line with international standards, as will be further explained below.  Therefore, while the Court declined to block drilling in the North Sea in the case at bar, this reasoning may be used in future cases to hold member states accountable to their human rights and climate obligations.

Treatment of the AOs

The judgment notes that key climate law concepts had already been addressed in KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland – the landmark case brought by older women in Switzerlandandpreviously discussed on the WYCJ blog - thereby confirming that KlimaSeniorinnen is emerging as a significant precedent within the European Convention system (paras. 129 and 281). The judgment further quotes directly from the ITLOS, IACtHR, and ICJ climate advisory opinions respectively and relies on these opinions specifically in relation to the duty to conduct environmental impact assessments. Additionally, the judgment touches on the Aarhus Convention, the Espoo Convention, the advisory opinion of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court (paras. 160 et seq, 323) – further discussed on the World’s Youth for Climate Justice blog –  and other relevant law related to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). However, this blog post concentrates primarily on the discussion surrounding the advisory opinions.

a. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Beginning with ITLOS, the Court quoted a passage related to EIAs, more specifically the duty to “carry out EIAs for any planned activity which may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment through anthropogenic GHG emissions” (para. 131; para. 367 in the ITLOS advisory opinion). This is central to the case, specifically whether Norway adequately considered the impacts of drilling (para. 320) and was addressed by the ECtHR in its discussions of the procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR. There the Court referred directly to the ITLOS advisory opinion, reiterating that States were under an obligation to carry out EIAs for any planned activity which could cause substantial pollution to the marine environment or significant and harmful changes to it through anthropogenic GHG emissions (para. 321).

b. Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The Court also quoted at length from the IACtHR opinion related to EIAs (paras. 132-135). The excerpts the Court highlighted include how EIAs must include, inter alia, potential effects on the climate, be based on the best available science, and respect Indigenous peoples (Greenpeace Nordic paras. 132-135; paras. 358-359, 361-363 in the IACtHR advisory opinion). 

Notably, however, the Court did not find that the rights of the Sámi youth plaintiffs had been demonstrably violated for their claims to be admissible, although it acknowledged a report from the Norwegian National Human Rights Institution that the Sámi continue to be disproportionately impacted by climate change (paras. 192, 303, 307). Concerningly, this suggests a high bar for relief for Indigenous plaintiffs, arguably in opposition to the Inter-American standards. In its Article 8 discussion, the Court specified that the IACtHR “declared, in particular, that, because of the general obligation to prevent environmental damage, any projects or activities that involved the risk of generating significant GHG emissions had to undergo a climate impact assessment” (Greenpeace Nordic, para. 322, IACtHR advisory opinion, para. 359).

c. International Court of Justice

Finally, the Court’s most extensive block quotations were reserved for the ICJ advisory opinion (paras. 136-138). Perhaps most significantly, the passages the Court highlights discuss transboundary harm and duties of states (para. 138; paras. 427, 440 in the ICJ advisory opinion) and, in particular, the obligation under the customary duty to prevent significant transboundary harm to “undertake specific climate-related assessments in cases of proposed industrial activities in a transboundary context” (para. 324). Importantly, the ECtHR stressed the ICJ’s findings that such EIAs should assess the possible downstream effects of activities contributing to GHG emissions, based on the best available science (para. 324).

d. Impact on the ECtHR’s Reasoning

As can be seen from these passages, the ECtHR overall heavily relied upon all three climate advisory opinions in regard to the obligation to conduct environmental impact assessments and the scope that should be considered as part of such assessments, importantly including the impacts on the climate system. In its reasoning under Article 8 it becomes clear that EIAs for, e.g. petroleum extraction projects must take account of their downstream effects and impact on climate change (paras. 330-333).

Nevertheless, in this case, the applicants had contested petroleum exploration licenses, which under Norwegian law does not provide authorization for petroleum extraction (paras. 79, 109, 331). While these licenses had failed to take account of the future climate impacts of potential petroleum extraction, Norwegian law, including the Supreme Court, requires such an assessment to be made at a later stage (para. 331). The ECtHR did note concern over waivers that have been given to several petroleum extraction projects without any assessment of the impact of their projected combustion emissions on climate change, stressing that such widespread use could undermine the right against serious impacts of climate change on the life, health, well-being and the quality of life of individuals (para. 332). Despite this, the domestic safeguards generally ensure that a comprehensive EIA, including the impacts on climate change and informed public consultation, must be conducted before a petroleum extraction project could be approved (paras. 333-335). Hence, and because of a lack of arguments showcasing that the existing legal framework would not be implemented or that a deferred impact assessment may violate Article 8 ECHR, the Court considered that there has been no violation of Article 8 ECHR (paras. 336-337). 

While the Court did not find a fault in this particular situation (yet), the findings are an important assurance that under Article 8 ECHR, States must conduct comprehensive EIAs, which align with international obligations, the best available science, and which take into account downstream and long-term future effects and, specifically, the impact on the climate system. Additionally, petroleum production must also include consultation procedures for persons affected.

Conclusion

Although the decision as noted does not directly block drilling, it is a significant first step towards  accountability for the human rights harms connected to  fossil fuel licensing and EIAs, although more must still be done to end fossil fuel exploration and extraction. Essentially, in addressing the procedural adequacy of licensing for fossil fuel exploration, the Court sets more strict environmental standards for the future, which could form the basis for future litigation. Although the Court’s reasoning is limited as it addresses a single stage in the process of fossil fuel exploitation, it puts governments on notice to conduct robust EIAs, or risk being held accountable in court. Furthermore, in implementing the historic advisory opinions so soon after their release, the European Court of Human Rights signals that these opinions will continue to shape international law for years to come. WYCJ urges all parties to the UNFCCC to raise ambition, in recognition of legally binding obligations to preserve the climate system for future generations.

*Robin Happel is an environmental lawyer based in New York. She is a member of the WYCJ Legal Blog Editorial Board and Legal Taskforce, in addition to other pro bono climate and human rights advocacy work.