02 July 2026
Between and Beyond Regional Perspectives on Climate Change and Human Rights
Climate change has reached the dockets of (international) courts. The intersecting nature of this existential threat has led to a flurry of judicial action – somewhat paradoxically in the absence of meaningful political action. Yet, as case law is proliferating, the discussion about climate change in international adjudication has become highly specialized. Against this background, this contribution shares observations on the emergence of regional climate change law and calls for taking this regional perspective seriously by extending it beyond what is traditionally understood as inter-judicial dialogue. Continue reading >>
0 
01 July 2026
Learning from Each Other
The relationship between the world's regional human rights courts has undergone a quiet but consequential transformation over the past decade. What began as occasional, informal exchanges among judges and registries — encounters at conferences, the mutual citation of landmark judgments, coordinated submissions to United Nations human rights bodies — has matured into something more deliberate and structurally significant. This blog post examines that transformation from the perspective of the Inter-American Court by attending closely to the three dimensions in which cooperation actually operates. Continue reading >>
0
29 June 2026
Looking Sideways
What are the major interpretative principles which assist the European Court of Human Rights in its decision-making? What role do they play in climate change judgments? Subsidiarity, the living instrument doctrine and a harmonious interpretation of international law all enable the Court to incorporate relevant comparative law into its reasoning. Climate change case-law is particularly well-suited to the comparative law approach and I argue that the role of comparative law can potentially have more impact in this emerging area of the law than in others. Continue reading >>
0
17 June 2026
Inter-Judicial Dialogue on Climate Change and Human Rights
Climate change is not only an environmental or scientific issue – it is fundamentally a human rights challenge. Across jurisdictions and legal traditions, courts are increasingly being called upon to respond to their complex and far-reaching impacts on our human rights. This symposium brings together reflections from judges, practitioners, and scholars from the three regional human rights systems, based on presentations delivered at a conference held at Central European University in cooperation with the University of Vienna on 17 April 2026. Continue reading >>
0
18 January 2024
Leading the Way
There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective. Continue reading >>
0
20 March 2021
Strasbourg and San José Close Ranks
Both in Latin America and in Europe, judicial independence is under increasing attack. What has been the position of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights in combatting undue interference in the work of judges and prosecutors? And does their jurisprudence “cross-fertilize” each other? This article provides a glimpse of some of the judgments on illegitimate restrictions and destitutions of judges issued by the sister courts. This jurisprudence is evidence of an increasingly profound and structural exchange between the I/A Court and the ECHR. Continue reading >>
0
22 May 2020
Squaring the PSPP Circle
The PSPP judgment made a core problem of the European Union painfully visible as the supremacy of EU law clashed with national constitutional identity. There is, however, a possibility to square this circle: national apex courts could be empowered to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’ under Article 4(2) TEU as an alternative to the disapplication of EU law. Continue reading >>20 May 2020
From Dialogue to Trialogue
The current clash between the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECJ should not obscure the fact that none of the two courts fits the cliché they are often turned into. A view at some ECJ decisions regarding criminal law makes this clear. Nonetheless, the dynamic between the courts must change – maybe the European citizen can step in and offer help. Continue reading >>
0
19 April 2020
Domestic Courts Pushing for a Workable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU
On 17 February 2020, the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe passed a decision in a surrender case that we expect to shape the future of the LM-test. Its decision can be seen not only as a result of Luxembourg’s unworkable LM test but also as an acknowledgement of the effect of Poland’s muzzle law on the independence of its judiciary. Shortly after, Rechtbank Amsterdam engaged with this decision, thus making it more likely that the CJEU will have to move forward and develop its test into a more meaningful one. Continue reading >>18 April 2020
Luxembourg’s Unworkable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU
A key rule of law case illustrating the conversation taking place between national judges and the Court of Justice about the how-to of rule of law protection is the CJEU’s LM ruling dealing with the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant. In it the CJEU developed a test to balance mutual trust and individual rights, particularly the right to a fair trial. The Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Karlsruhe Oberlandesgericht applied Luxembourg’s LM test with respect to Polish suspects in a series of recent (interlocutory) rulings. This national case-law is interesting both for its immediate outcome (suspension of surrenders) and its implicit message to Luxembourg: “Sorry, we tried, but your test is unworkable.” Continue reading >>
0