Remedies as the Real Test in The Gambia v Myanmar
The merits hearings in Application of the Genocide Convention (The Gambia v Myanmar) concluded on 29 January 2026, and the Court has entered deliberations, with the judgment date to be announced later. Commentary on this case understandably gravitates to proof, genocidal intent, and whether the ICJ will repeat the caution of its earlier genocide judgments. Those issues matter, but they can obscure a harder question: what does the Court think a genocide judgment is for? The answer is not found in abstract debates about enforceability. It is embedded in remedies. Continue reading >>
Stopping the Davids, Shielding the Goliaths
In Barbara v. Trump, an individual federal district court judge stopped the Administration’s birthright citizenship executive order nationwide. Just when the Supreme Court said this was not allowed in Trump v. CASA, a New Hampshire judge ordered universal relief, this time through a class action. There is a big difference between a nationwide injunction that benefits non-parties and a class action that benefits class members. But what they have in common is that they both empower the “little guy” to enforce the rule of law. The Supreme Court has eliminated the former and is now trying to kneecap the latter. Continue reading >>
Addressing Accountability in the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion
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. Continue reading >>
From Strasbourg to Luxembourg?
KlimaSeniorinnen has established a remedy which, in EU law, is not easy to locate and may actually be unavailable in light of restrictive CJEU case law. Whatever one’s views on this restrictive case law, it is a fact that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now obliges the CJEU to do as much as it can to accommodate the KlimaSeniorinnen remedy and to interpret the relevant TFEU provisions flexibly. One may assume that, sooner or later, the CJEU will be confronted with a KlimaSeniorinnen claim. If the CJEU were to declare such a claim inadmissible, it will put itself in the corner of courts refusing to engage with climate change policies. That would be unfortunate for a court that has long been at the forefront of legal progress.
Continue reading >>
Who is afraid of actio popularis?
If, as the German experience suggests, the actio popularis exclusion serves to bar individuals from invoking objective illegality that does not concern rights, while standing of associations is a way to enforce objective legality despite the actio popularis exclusion, it is hard to see why this should have any relevance for the European Convention of Human Rights. Human rights are, after all, rights.
Continue reading >>