A Blueprint for Rights-Based Climate Action

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion No. 32—the most important and progressive document yet released by an international court on the climate crisis. The IACtHR’s findings are as comprehensive as they are groundbreaking, spanning areas from procedural requirements for mitigation measures to the protection of environmental defenders. This post launches a blog symposium on the advisory opinion and discusses ten key takeaways, chosen to illustrate the opinion’s legal and practical significance.

Ein Verbrechen sucht ein Gericht

Russlands Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine verletzt das Gewaltverbot der UN-Charta in aller Deutlichkeit, bleibt strafrechtlich allerdings bislang ungesühnt. Der Europarat und die Ukraine reagieren mit einem Sondertribunal, das hochrangige Verantwortliche für das Verbrechen der Aggression zur Rechenschaft ziehen soll – trotz politischer und verfassungsrechtlicher Hürden. Es bündelt internationale Unterstützung und setzt ein starkes Zeichen gegen Straflosigkeit bei Angriffen auf die internationale Rechtsordnung. Ein ungewöhnlicher Schritt, der das Völkerstrafrecht grundlegend herausfordert.

U.S. Attacks on Iran

Israel and the United States attacked Iran in mid-June 2025 with the aim of ending its nuclear program. Iran counter-attacked. While some world leaders justified what Israel and the U.S. were doing, they did so in line with political deterrence theory, not the plain terms of the United Nations Charter. The lawful use of force in self-defense depends on an armed attack occurring. Concerns over nuclear weapons are to be resolved through treaties and negotiations. Honoring deterrence theory over the law is undermining the surest path to peace.

Energy Sanctions Reloaded

The European Commission proposed a ban on Russian gas imports based on Article 207 TFEU – a legal basis related to the EU’s Common Commercial Policy, rather than the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Although the policy domains of trade and sanctions often overlap in practice, the new proposal seems to overlook that the EU maintains a distinct legal framework for imposing sanctions. If the ban is ultimately enacted under Article 207 TFEU, there is a risk that one or more Member States opposing these new sanctions against Russia will challenge it on the grounds that this EU Regulation is based on the wrong legal basis.

Piraterie in der Ostsee

Immer häufiger kommt es auf der Ostsee zu Sabotageakten und elektromagnetischen Signalstörungen, für die Schiffe der russischen Schattenflotte verantwortlich gemacht werden. Da sich diese Aktionen oft in internationalen Gewässern abspielen, herrscht unter manchen Rechtswissenschaftlern und Praktikern Skepsis, ob Marine und Küstenwache eingreifen können. Eine „schlafende“, aber immer noch gültige Norm des Anti-Piraterierechts bietet für die Ostsee-Anrainerstaaten allerdings sehr weitreichende Möglichkeiten, genau das zu tun.

The Future of International Criminal Law is Domestic

Domestic courts are increasingly stepping in where international institutions falter, becoming key enforcers of international criminal law. The conviction of Syrian doctor Alaa M. in Germany exemplifies the potential of universal jurisdiction to deliver justice beyond borders. While the ICC remains blocked in the Syria situation, national trials offer credible, survivor-driven accountability. Rather than being a fallback, domestic prosecutions are emerging as a central pillar of international criminal justice.

Democracy Washing

The Israeli Supreme Court has recently adopted a highly activist approach in rulings that claim to strengthen the structural foundations of democracy, while neglecting its role in protecting the basic human rights of Palestinians. The stark contrast between the Court’s handling of cases involving Palestinians detained incommunicado and its swift intervention in the dismissal of the Shin Bet Director reflects a deeper pattern in the Court’s recent jurisprudence, one that can be described as “democracy washing”.

Forced Sterilizations on Trial

On May 22, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held a hearing in Ramos Durand et al. v. Peru. This is only the second forced sterilization case before the Court (after I.V. v. Bolivia) and the first addressing a widespread, state-led policy of coercion like Peru’s. For the first time, the IACHR may explicitly characterize forced sterilizations as reproductive violence and thus as a form of gender-based violence, contributing to a broader and more inclusive understanding of reproductive rights violations within the regional human rights framework.