| dc.description.abstract | The climate crisis is one of the most crucial issues of today. National and international agreements and legislation have, for decades, emphasized the importance of national and multilateral cooperation in tackling the climate crisis. Subsequently, we are witnessing the increasing use of Courts in the task of challenging and combating climate change and the insufficient measures taken by States to do their part. In 2013, the Dutch State was sued by the Urgenda Foundation for their lack of adjustments to combat climate change, resulting in the first Supreme Court decision that ordered a State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Three years later, in 2016, Greenpeace and Nature & Youth Norway sued the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy for issuing further petroleum production licenses in the Barents Sea. This became a high- profile lawsuit that eventually ended in a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Norwegian State, and the resulting view of a constitution unable to protect its citizens from the environmental consequences of Norwegian oil and gas production. Through a comparative case analysis, this project examines the legal and extralegal similarities and differences surrounding, and potentially, affecting the Dutch and Norwegian climate change cases, which ultimately led to the contrasting Supreme Court decisions. Further, it contributes to the growing literature devoted to analyzing how to succeed in climate change litigation. With a theoretical framework consisting of green, critical criminology, eco-philosophy and, to some degree, social movement theory, this project explores climate change as a form of state-corporate crime, in which interests of the State and/or corporations are prioritized above the protection of citizens at risk of experiencing the environmental consequences of their actions. The findings suggest that the cause of action and the interpretation of the legal basis were the main differences that influenced the outcomes of the cases. Similarly, the different interpretations and applications of the Precautionary Principle, which were dependent on the cause of action and legal interpretations, were influential in the final decisions as well. Both cases also involved questions of judicial review legitimacy, and the role of the Courts in determining climate change policies, in which it was found that there seems to be high levels of trust between the Norwegian State and Court, thus resulting in a higher threshold for the Norwegian Court to decide against the State. The findings also suggest that the cross-national responsibilities of States, in terms of protecting non-citizens from their greenhouse gas emissions, is not a fruitful basis for litigation as States are not bound to protect or provide rights for non-citizens. However, the effects of a successful climate change case will nonetheless have positive consequences for others than merely the litigants in a case. | eng |