The Weekly Round-up: Assisted dying bill advances, ICJ looks at climate change, and LGBTQ asylum-seekers at ECtHR
9 December 2024
In UK news
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its second reading debate on 29 November 2024. The current draft of the bill is available here. The dates for the Committee Stage have not yet been announced. Supporters of the bill point out that the bill is limited to allowing assisted dying only for adults with mental capacity who have a terminal illness and can be reasonably expected to die within six months and has a range of safeguards. The process to request assistance requires the approval of two doctors (independent of each other) and a High Court judge. THe bill also creates an offence of dishonesty, coercion and pressure to protect vulnerable people from inappropriate pressures. However, critics of the bill cast doubt on the safeguards, arguing that people can shop around for doctors and that there are not enough High Court judges to provide sufficient scrutiny of applications. There are also continuing debates regarding whether the bill creates a “slippery slope” allowing assisted dying to be available to more people in the future (for example here and here).
In international news
This week the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held hearings regarding the legal obligations of states with regard to climate change. The ICJ was requested to publish an advisory opinion on the positive duties of states to “ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases” and what are the legal consequences where states “have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”. The initiative to request the advisory opinion was started by Vanuatu, a small island state which due to its geographical location is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The records of the public sittings are available here.
In the courts
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has published a judgment that could have wide ranging impacts on states obligations with respect to protection for LGBTQ asylum-seekers. MI is a gay man from Iran who was facing threats from his relatives due to his sexual orientation. He was denied asylum in Switzerland with the Federal Administrative Court holding that while homosexuality is a criminal offence in Iran, in practice convictions are rare. The Federal Administrative Court held that MI’s sexual orientation was not widely known and so he would be safe in Iran provided that he lived “a life of discretion”. The ECtHR held that the Swiss authorities incorrectly determined that MI faced no real risk of ill-treatment because it was unlikely that MI’s sexual orientation would become known to the Iranian authorities. Further, the Swiss authorities failed to carry out the necessary assessment of the availability of state protection against harm caused by non-state actors (in this case MI’s relatives). The ECtHR went on to hold that it would be unreasonable to expect an LGBTQ person to seek protection from the Iranian authorities.
