With AO-32/25, the IACtHR has delivered a historic and bold affirmation that climate change is not only an environmental emergency but also a profound human rights crisis, one that requires both prevention and reparation. By articulating States’ duties to provide remedies, the IACtHR has moved the conversation to one of legal accountability and remediation.
A tempting but corrosive thought about Israeli politics – and about many other places – is that we have already embarked on a one-way road to authoritarianism. This “authoritarian determinism”, sometimes presented as a kind of seasoned realism, assumes that political trajectories continue unidirectionally. There is a world of difference between the many political contexts in which authoritarianism seems to be on the rise. And yet, a common question seems to be asked: in the face of authoritarian determinism, what can be saved of the democratic process? Until when does it make sense to hold on?
In its meeting on 15 July 2025, the Council of the EU failed to adopt concrete measures vis-à-vis Israel, limiting itself to an “exchange of views on an inventory of possible follow-up measures”. This hesitant approach stands in contrast to clear indications that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (AA), and to the EU’s own obligation to work towards consolidating human rights and the principles of public international law pursuant to Article 21 TEU. While a suspension of the entire AA was never really foreseeable, an important question relates to the voting threshold within the Council that would apply to such a decision relating to the AA.
On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) published its long-awaited Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25). The Opinion responds to a 2023 request from Colombia and Chile, asking the IACtHR to clarify the scope of States’ obligations to address the climate emergency under international human rights law. While the decision marks a significant step toward recognizing the climate crisis as a human rights issue, this blog post aims to shed light on a critical omission in the IACtHR’s reasoning: the impact of environmental degradation and the climate emergency on sexual and reproductive health and rights.
The Case for Disengagement Is Misguided
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) advisory opinion on human rights and the climate emergency (AO-32/25) addresses numerous dimensions of the climate crisis, setting an important precedent for the protection of our planet. This post focuses on one particularly significant development: the IACtHR’s recognition of Nature as a subject of rights. We argue that the IACtHR’s pronouncements on this subject mark the advent of an ecocentric paradigm whose implications are likely to be far-reaching and transformative.
An obligation to quantify each country’s fair share of the remaining global carbon budget associated with limiting global heating to 1.5°C flows from the judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen. While there will naturally be debate about what represents a country’s fair share – the EU’s independent advisory body ESAB recently considered a range of fair share principles and concluded that the EU’s fair share has already been used up under many of these – the obligation to quantify fair share budgets should, in our view, be the subject of a reduced margin of appreciation consistent with KlimaSeniorinnen.
With Like Company v Google, the first groundbreaking AI copyright case is now headed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In this case, a Hungarian press publisher challenges Google and its Gemini chatbot for reproducing and communicating its editorial content without authorisation. The Court’s decision will establish the legal framework for AI’s relationship with copyright and press publishers’ rights across the EU. It will potentially reshape how generative AI systems can or cannot lawfully access, process and reproduce journalistic and other protected content. This may even fundamentally affect the economic and technical architecture of future AI development.
This post focuses on one notable aspect of AO-32/25 that has not received attention in other commentary–the IACtHR’s engagement with gender issues. We find that the IACtHR has taken an important step forward, both in recognizing gender as a key determinant of climate vulnerability and in identifying gender-responsive obligations on States. However, the IACtHR’s comments in this regard remain general and often gestural. The obligations identified are limited, narrow, and many relate to data gathering rather than substantial action.
On 10 July 2025, the European Commission published the final version of its Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) – a voluntary rulebook developed by a group of independent experts and more than 1,400 stakeholders from industry, academia, civil society, and rightsholders. The Code is meant to prepare providers for what’s ahead: it offers a straightforward way to start complying with future obligations under the AI Act. Its success will ultimately depend on whether it manages to reduce compliance burdens and provide legal certainty. Even if not universally adopted, it could still serve as a regulatory benchmark under the AI Act.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters