Lessons of a Landmark Lost

On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change.

A Piece of Advice

In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.

Hansa Mehta

Imagine if the very first article of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948, referred “all men”, rather than “all human beings”, and asked us all to act in the spirit of “brotherhood”. Thankfully, that is not how it reads, and for this, credit is due to an Indian woman: Hansa Mehta, whose contribution UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres recognized in his speech celebrating 70 years of the UDHR when he said: “without her, we would literally be speaking of Rights of Man rather than Human Rights.”

Farewell to the Rules-Based Order

As political analysts debate the reasons for Trump’s victory, one contributing factor is surely the utter failure of Biden’s Gaza policies. As the US has continued to fund an Israeli war of annihilation against Gaza, the democratic ticket became a hard sell for many who care about Palestinians. Yet, Gaza has also triggered a veritable renaissance of international litigation. With Gaza destroyed and Trump in the White House, this tension may have reached a terminal point. And yet, I argue, the ghost of a rule-based order lingers in our political imagination despite its inability to shape outcomes.

Towards Universal Criminalisation

“Italy Criminalises Surrogacy from Abroad, a Blow to Gay and Infertile Couples.” This was the headline on the New York Times website following the approval of a law in Italy criminalising reproductive tourism. Giorgia Meloni had already introduced the bill, Act no. 824, in the last Parliament, and the current right-wing majority has now passed it. The news has gone around the world. Let us try to understand why.

The Tail That Wags the Dog

In Opinion 2/13 the Court of Justice held that accession to the ECHR must not interfere with the operation of the principle of mutual trust as this would affect the autonomy of EU law. I offer a different reading: mutual trust is not a general principle capable of having autonomous legal effects. Furthermore, mutual trust is acquiring a novel value for the progressive operationalisation of the foundational values ex Article 2 TEU. Read in this way, it has then the potential to enhance fundamental rights protection and is certainly no bar to accession to the ECHR – it is the dog of core values that wags the tail of mutual trust and not vice versa.

Two Courts, Two Visions

The diverging standards of protection concerning the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR, remain a critical obstacle to the EU’s renewed attempt at accession to the ECHR. In this field, the two Courts seem to be drifting further apart rather than converging, leading to unresolved conflicts between the standard of fundamental rights protection and mutual trust obligations in the EU. Except in the unlikely event of a course-correction by the CJEU, this means that we are no closer to accession today than we were ten years ago, when the now-infamous Opinion 2/13 was handed down.

Of Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights Charters

The Council of Europe has adopted the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence – the first of its kind. Notably, the Framework Convention includes provisions specifically tailored to enable the EU’s participation. At the same time, the EU has developed its own framework around AI. I argue that the EU should adopt the Framework Convention, making an essential first step toward integrating the protection of fundamental rights of the EU Charter. Ultimately, this should create a common constitutional language and bridge the EU and the Council of Europe to strengthen fundamental rights in Europe.

Maintaining Resilience in Human Rights Interpretation

In the Religious Movement Advisory Opinion, the European Court of Human Rights established detailed risk and proportionality assessment criteria that deviate from its previous case law in individual applications. The Court thus seems eager to embrace its standard-setting role and the spirit of dialogue inherent in the advisory opinion procedure, indicating some potential for resilience in rights interpretation within this sensitive context.

Hoffnung für afghanische Frauen

Seit 2021 haben die Taliban über 80 Dekrete erlassen, um Frauenrechte in Afghanistan schrittweise einzuschränken: etwa den Zugang zur weiterführenden Bildung, zur Justiz und zum öffentlichen Raum. Australien, Deutschland, Kanada und die Niederlande streben nun eine Klage gegen Afghanistan vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof an – wegen Verletzungen der UN-Frauenrechtskonvention. Der folgende Beitrag skizziert die Voraussetzungen für eine Klage und zeigt, dass das Verfahren internationale Solidarität signalisiert und politischen Druck auf Drittstaaten ausübt.