The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the “Climate Emergency and Human Rights” represents a transformative moment in international legal doctrine on climate-induced displacement and shows why the IACtHR’s conclusions constitute not merely an incremental development, but a fundamental reorientation of the human rights law approach to one of the most pressing challenges of our time.
This week, the Polish government unveiled its new migration strategy which lays out a proposal that, “in the event of a threat to destabilize the country by an influx of immigrants, it should be possible to temporarily and territorially suspend the right to accept asylum applications.” This blog argues that the proposal is not only unlawful but also poses a threat to the common European asylum system. This is so especially in light of the upcoming implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.
Migration and border control are amongst the most pressing topics throughout the regions in this global super-election year. How to tackle this issue seems to be the million-dollar question and the urgency of this topic seemingly has pushed President Joe Biden – who previously pledged to reverse restrictive migration policies – to drastic measures. After failed attempts to pass a bipartisan immigration deal earlier this year, Biden is now in a race with Republican candidate Donald Trump to show a “tough stand” on the matter while ignoring core refugee law principles and arguably with little lasting effects on numbers of arrivals at the southern border.
There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective.
Last month the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) granted an urgent interim measure according to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in a case concerning an imminent removal of an asylum-seeker from the UK to Rwanda. The UK's policy of outsourcing sets another dangerous precedence when it comes to restricting territorial asylum and the basic rights of asylum seekers. It is expensive, contrary to international human rights obligations, has significant adverse effects on those affected, scratches the state´s reputation, and increases existing tensions with the ECtHR.
The outcome of the case ND and NT v. Spain currently pending before the Grand Chamber may determine the future course of the Court in other migration policy cases. It will show whether the ECtHR still deserves its title as an ‘island of hope in stormy times’ or whether this island is drowning under the pressure of some of its Member States.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters