The Moral Responsibility of Oil-Producing States: With Norway as Case Study

Abstract

Climate change and environmental damage are some of the biggest challenges we face today. Since the 1960s, the default system of natural resource governance has been permanent sovereignty, which means that states can do more or less as they like with the natural resources that lie within their territorial borders. This thesis address two main philosophical issues that are both related to resource use and climate issues: the first is whether it is justifiable to view states as controllers of offshore mineral resources like oil and gas. The other one is whether – even if we assume for the sake of argument that states are the rightful controllers of their resources – states that produce and export offshore oil and gas should shoulder some costs when it comes to addressing climate change. To the first issue I argue that the principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources is not justified and that we need other ways of governing natural resources. I further argue that the fact that states can exploit offshore natural resources for their own benefit is an arbitrary and unjustifiable fact in international law today – a fact that is enabling climate change. To the second issue, I argue that oil-producers and -exporters should in fact shoulder more costs than they currently do. In current environmental governance, only the emitter of greenhouse gases is seen as responsible for the emissions, I argue that also oil-producers and -exporters should be seen as responsible because they are enabling the emissions. I use the case of Norwegian offshore petroleum resource extraction to exemplify this.