Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des Völkerrechts, einschließlich der Integration völkerrechtlicher Normen in nationale Verfassungsordnungen, Vertragsabschlussbefugnisse, völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen und verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen internationaler Bindungen. Umfasst die Schnittstelle zwischen nationalem Verfassungsrecht und völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen.
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.
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 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.
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.
While there are many aspects of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25) that are new and groundbreaking, the inclusion of a reflection on jus cogens might have surprised some observers. The legal consequences of the recognition as jus cogens of the obligation not to create irreversible damage to the climate and the global environment are profound. Treaties violating the norm are void, customary international law rules cannot exist, nor does the persistent objector rule apply.
The right to a healthy environment is at the heart of the landmark Advisory Opinion 32/25 (AO-32/25) on the climate emergency from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). AO-32/25 marks the clearest ruling to date from an international court on the urgency of transformative changes to address the existential threat of the planetary environmental emergency caused by human activities.
Am 23. Juni 2025 trafen sich die 27 Außenminister der Europäischen Union (EU) in Brüssel, um über die Zukunft des Assoziierungsabkommens mit Israel (AA EU–Israel) zu beraten. Das Außenministertreffen selbst führte zu keiner Entscheidung über eine mögliche Aussetzung des Abkommens. Gemäß Art. 21 EUV ist die EU jedoch verpflichtet, im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu handeln und bei festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der Grundlage des AA EU–Israel zu reagieren. Andernfalls riskiert die EU, gegen ihr eigenes Primärrecht zu verstoßen.
Superlatives are often overused - but in the case of the Grand Chamber judgment in Ukraine, The Netherlands v Russia, delivered on 9 July 2025, they are not only justified but arguably inadequate. This case stands out as one of the most consequential and complex in the history of the European Court of Human Rights. It addresses systemic human rights violations committed in the context of an ongoing international armed conflict and during a prolonged period of occupation.
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.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters