Upgrading Environmental Rights

In Community of La Oroya v. Peru the IACtHR for the first time found a violation of the autonomous right to a healthy environment in a non-indigenous context related to the long-lasting environmental contamination of a community by toxic substances. La Oroya lays foundational principles that will likely shape the content and direction of environmental and climate change litigation and jurisprudence in the Americas. This historic judgment provides a robust basis for anticipating how the Court will handle the specification of environmental rights within the climate emergency and how it may accordingly inform States’ human rights obligations.

La Oroya and Inter-American Innovations on the Right to a Healthy Environment

In La Oroya v. Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared Peru responsible for violating several rights, including the right to a healthy environment, due to the environmental degradation and health crises in La Oroya—one of the world’s most polluted cities. Regarding the right to a healthy environment, the Court addresses for the first time pollution in air, water, and soil—marking a departure from previous cases that primarily focused on communal property rights and deforestation—and even goes as far as to refer to the right to a healthy environment as jus cogens. Such innovations would have not been possible without the ever-expanding horizon of Inter-American case law and approaches.

The New Transgender Ruling in Czechia

In a recent decision in the case of N.G. (Pl. ÚS 52/23), the Czech Constitutional Court (CCC) addressed the pressing issue of trans persons’ rights, more specifically the requirements for legal gender reassignment, involving (often involuntary) sterilisation and castration. When compared to the earlier decision in T.H. (Pl. ÚS 2/20), the new ruling represents a major shift. In fact, the CCC changed its legal position by 180 degrees, giving preference to protecting individual rights over deferring to the legislator’s choices.

Bend it like Britain?

After months of parliamentary ping-pong, the UK Parliament passed the “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act” in late April. Not even two weeks later, 66 persons were detained to be deported to Rwanda, and the FDA launched an unprecedented legal action before the High Court, claiming the Act conflicts with the Civil Service Code obligation to “uphold the rule of law and administration of justice.” By seeking to avoid the prohibition of refoulement, the Act undermines both core principles of the rule of law and disapplies fundamental human rights protections. This blog post discusses key provisions of the new Act, the concerns they raise and some remaining avenues for legal challenges.

Bertha Maria Júlia Lutz

Bertha Maria Júlia Lutz was an acknowledged scientist, a women’s rights activist, a politician, and a diplomat. Mostly known for being one of four women to sign the United Nations Charter in 1945 and assuring the inclusion of the rights of women in its preamble, she also played a vital role in attaining women’s suffrage in Brazil.

Legalising Illegality

Following Russia’s on-going facilitation of migrants to the Finnish border since last fall, Finland’s newly formed right-wing coalition government has closed the eastern land border indefinitely on 4 April 2024. Worried that this step will not be enough to ensure national security, the government is finalising a Draft Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration, currently under revision.The draft bill allows for pushbacks in violation of non-refoulement and openly admits a conflict with Finland’s human rights obligations, EU law and own constitutional system, which is unusual. The unprecedented nature of the proposed measures is particularly worrying given that the Act appears unlikely to effectively address the essentially political problem that “migrant instrumentalisation” poses.

Reparation for Climate Change at the ECtHR

The recent rulings on climate change by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are—as others have pointed out in this blog symposium—both “historic and unprecedented” for various reasons, not least regarding the question of reparation for climate change-related harm. While redress is a pivotal question to think through in relation to climate change, it has, somewhat surprisingly, received less attention from scholars and has not yet been directly addressed by international courts and tribunals. In this regard, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland might be considered a missed opportunity on the part of the ECtHR.

KlimaSeniorinnen and the Question(s) of Causation

In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights makes many general statements about the nature of climate change and different actors’ roles in addressing it. Many points have been addressed in this blog symposium. In my blog post, I turn to a more technical aspect of the judgment, namely the question of causation. I will untangle the analytical gymnastics that the Court performs regarding this question. I will argue that the reasoning regarding causation is confusing and that it is not clear how specifically the ‘real prospect’ test is applied for finding a breach.

The Battle for Immunity

The International Law Commission is preparing to continue discussions on Draft Articles on the Immunity of State Officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction at its forthcoming 75th summer session. This article focuses on two issues: the scope of immunity and its exceptions. These issues, which are widely discussed internationally, are far from being resolved. In this state of flux, a common ground is needed to move forward, which I try to outline in this blog post.