We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory Opinion on the “obligations of states in respect of climate change” from 15 judges, in 130+ pages. Its ruling was unanimous, with a strong closing flourish trailed in my title. There has been a great burst of favourable responses to the Opinion which was delivered yesterday, for instance the Center for International Environmental Law.
But what does the Opinion say, and does it matter?
The questions
The request for the Opinion had come from the UN General Assembly in March 2023. After a typically baggy “chapeau” of potentially relevant climate change and human rights treaties, the UN GA sought answers to the following questions
What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?
What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
The peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?”
In December 2014, the ICJ heard oral submissions from 96 states and 11 international organisations (including the EU, the African Union, WHO, and various organisations representing small island states). Major emitting states such as the UK, the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait made individual submissions. This response marks the importance that most UN states attached to this process.
Written transparency of the case is excellent: all those submissions, the written statements preceding them, and the underlying treaties and legal materials are to be found on the ICJ website here.
An ICJ advisory Opinion is just that – advisory. As the ICJ itself acknowledges, it has no binding force, but they may carry great weight and, as the ICJ hopes, “moral authority”. Such opinions are not for bruising fights between individual state parties. Their aim is that the ICJ contribute to the clarification and development of international law.
So how does this Opinion advance the sum of international law knowledge on climate change?
Over 100 people have been arrested across the UK in the wake of the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, via its amendment of the Terrorism Act 2000 earlier this month. The arrests, which mostly took place this weekend in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Manchester and Truro at demonstrations co-ordinated by Defend Our Juries, saw protestors who had called for a reversal of the ban on Palestine Action charged with the offence of supporting a terrorist organisation. At a separate event in Canterbury, another pro-Palestine demonstrator was filmed being threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act by armed police, without having expressed any support for the proscribed group. Amnesty International have called the footage “very concerning… We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. This video documents one aspect of exactly the kind of thing we were warning about.” The following Monday, Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori renewed her legal challenge against the ban at the High Court. The group’s acts of terror include spray-painting aircraft and blockading traffic.
At the heart of the case of R (Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin), a tragedy: the murder of a 14-year-old boy, Jaden Bailey, and the profound grief of his mother. Jaden had been drawn into criminal activity, first in Nottinghamshire, then London. In October 2018 he had been found at a “cuckoo house” in Bournemouth, in possession of cocaine, a mobile phone and £325 in cash. He was brought back to London by the Metropolitan Police, following which an action plan was prepared by the Children’s Social Care Department of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. In November 2018 Jaden was permanently excluded from school after a Snapchat video showed him in possession of an imitation firearm, for which he was arrested and charged, pleading guilty. On 8 January 2019 Jaden was riding a moped in Leyton when he was hit by a car; the occupants of the car got out and stabbed Jaden. He died at the scene.
On 10 July 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Semenya v Switzerland. The case arose from the legal challenge by Olympic champion Caster Semenya to World Athletics’ regulations (“the DSD Regulations”)requiring athletes with differences in sex developments, also known as ‘intersex’ athletes, to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in the female category of certain events.
Importantly, the Applicant’s case in the ECtHR was not against World Athletics (since World Athletics is not an entity directly subject to the Convention) but against Switzerland for the role of its Federal Supreme Court (“SFSC”) in upholding the arbitral award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). The case therefore highlights the complexities involved in protecting human rights in the realm of international sports arbitration.
The Grand Chamber’s judgment, while ostensibly narrow in some respects, affirms the importance of Article 6 ECHR safeguards and arguably broadens the scope of its protection, particularly where fundamental rights are concerned in compulsory arbitration.
The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, published part 1 of its report. The Review was commissioned to address the backlog in criminal courts. The report makes a number of proposals to reduce the Crown Court caseload, most significantly:
Reducing the number of cases sent up from the Magistrates Court (by removing right of election for offences punishable by under two years’ imprisonment, and reclassifying offences from triable either way to summary only);
Introducing a new branch of the Crown Court, the ‘Crown Court (Bench Division)’, consisting of a judge and two magistrates. This court would handle offences punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years;
Allowing trial by judge alone in cases of exceptional length or complexity, such as serious and complex fraud;
Allowing defendants in the Crown Court to request judge-only trial.
The report stated that, while juries trials were seen as the ‘gold standard’, there was no ‘right’ to a jury and it was not always the most proportionate mode of trial. Other proposals include: investing in rehabilitation programmes and Out of Court Resolutions to divert people from courts; requiring permission to appeal from the Magistrates’ Court; match-funding criminal pupillages; raising the cap on Crown Court sitting days.
A number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill have been made. These include softening the fire-and-rehire ban; banning NDAs which prevent workers from talking about discrimination or harassment; and extending bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade decided in September 2024 to suspend licences authorising the export of items that might be used in carrying out or facilitating military operations in the conflict in Gaza. He did so explicitly because the Government had formed the view that Israel was not committed to compliance with international humanitarian law (‘IHL’) in the conflict in Gaza and that there was therefore a clear risk that such items might be used in that conflict to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL. However, the Secretary of State excluded from that suspension licences for the export of components for F-35 combat aircraft which could not be identified as destined for Israel. In this claim for judicial review the Claimant, supported by the Interveners, challenged the lawfulness of this exclusion, which has been referred to as the ‘F-35 Carve Out’.
In reaching these decisions, together referred to as ‘the September Decision’, the Secretary of State received advice from the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. In short, the advice of the Defence Secretary, set out in a letter dated 18th July 2024, was that:
(1) the multinational F-35 joint strike fighter programme (‘the F-35 Programme’1) is significantly dependent on the United Kingdom as the largest national provider of component parts outside the United States; (2) it was not currently possible to suspend licensing for export of F-35 components for use by Israel without having an impact on the entire F-35 Programme;
(3) a suspension of licensing for all F-35 nations would have a profound and immediate impact on international peace and security, would undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO at a critical juncture, would seriously undermine the credibility of the UK as a trusted partner on the international stage, and would undermine a key capability allowing the UK and its closest allies and partners to address current security challenges.
The Claimant “Al-Haq”, an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organisation based in Ramallah, contended that the F-35 Carve Out was unlawful. Al-Haq was supported by Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This was a “rolled up” hearing, in which permission to bring judicial review proceedings is considered at the same time as the merits of the claim.
During our conversation Lord Wolfson addresses the political sensitivities involved in reforming the ECtHR, particularly where it comes to the balance between national sovereignty and international human rights obligations, a topic on which he has been in public disagreement with the current government’s Attorney General Lord Hermer KC. We explore the legal questions that predate and would arise from those reforms, including the implications for the rule of law and the long term relationship between the UK and Strasbourg.
Lord Wolfson emphasises the importance of careful legal analysis and the need for clear, principled leadership in this sensitive area, since he is now tasked with reviewing how to prevent the ECtHR from blocking government policies, especially on contentious issues like immigration and climate change mitigation. Above all, he stresses that the rule of law must be observed by asserting parliamentary sovereignty over Strasbourg and other decisions by international institutions.
The EU’s diplomatic service has warned of “indications” that Israel’s activities in Gaza and the occupied West Bank are “in breach of [its] human rights obligations” to the Union under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The report, due to be presented on 23 June to the foreign ministers of Member States by Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the EU’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is based on “facts verified by and assessments made by independent international institutions”. It follows an audit pushed forward last month by 17 Member States, led by the Netherlands. The Agreement, which came into force in 2000, provides for free trade arrangements between the two parties, currently worth over 42 billion euros a year in goods, and a further c. 35 billion euros in services: the EU is Israel’s top commercial partner. Article 2 of the Agreement states that “Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.” Suspending the Agreement would require the unanimous consent of the EU’s 27 Member States.
The UK Office for Students (OfS) has issued new “free speech” guidelines to universities in England, effectively prohibiting blanket bans on student protests, and putting substantial brakes on the penalisation of students and staff exercising lawful speech. The guidelines anticipate and purport to give clarity to the provisions of delayed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, now revised and due to come into force this August. The OfS’s new “three step” approach requires universities to take “reasonably practical steps” to “secure free speech” which is “within the law” (= Steps 1 and 2): where this is not possible, it must run a proportionality assessment on any interferences to free speech, following Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (= Step 3). The National Union for Students has dismissed the guidance as “just more nonsense playing into the so-called ‘culture wars’”, with the new regulations failing to the prioritise “protecting and supporting marginalised students.”
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has held that an asylum applicant’s fears of being returned to a jurisdiction which was not a “safe third country” or “safe third State” only affected his rights to appeal if the application were deemed inadmissible: it was “immaterial” to the assessment of an application once admitted. In AAZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 705, a Yemeni national appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Home Secretary’s refusal of his asylum application. The appellant, who had lived in China since the age of one but did not have Chinese nationality, claimed that there had been an error of law in the Tribunal’s allowing his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds with regard to Yemen, but not on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds with regard to China. The appellant argued that, since China was not listed as a “safe third country” under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, the UK was in breach of its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and in contravention of his rights under ECHR Article 3 (prohibition of torture), following the provisions concerning return to a “safe third State” under Part 4A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Bean LJ held that these statutory provisions did not apply to the instant case: “whether a state is a “safe third State” within this new provision only affects rights of appeal”, something not disputed here. The applicant’s risk of ill-treatment if returned to China therefore had to be decided on the basis of evidence relating to his own circumstances. Bean LJ found that the First Tier Tribunal “gave entirely adequate reasons for finding that the test was not satisfied” by the evidence of AAZA, who had spent virtually his whole life in China before coming to the UK as a student: “there was no error of law.” However, the Court held that the appellant might still apply to have his application reconsidered by the Home Secretary, if he could submit fresh evidence that he was at a risk of refoulement from China to Yemen.
In ALR and others v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2025] EWHC 1467 (Admin), the High Court has dismissed a challenge against the government’s manifesto policy of adding VAT to private school fees. The claimants were a group of students, parents, and schools. Some of the students required specific schooling because of (inter alia) special educational needs and religious convictions; all claimants sought a declaration that the VAT addition was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. Specifically, they argued that imposing VAT was incompatible with Article 2 Protocol 1 (right to education) and 14 (protection from discrimination).
This dismissal of the judicial review challenge represents a significant ruling on the interplay between fiscal policy, human rights law and the allocation of resources for education.
A modest rise in justice spending was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review. The courts system will receive up to £450m extra a year by 2028-29, helping to increase Crown Court sitting days and implement the recommendations of the forthcoming Leveson review. The probation service will receive up to £700m extra funding by 2028-9. Funding will also be awarded to prison building and the Law Officers’ departments. The average real terms increase in Ministry of Justice funding is of 3.1%.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returned to the House of Commons for debate on Friday 13 June. Among the amendments discussed was a prohibition on registered medical practitioners or other health practitioners raising assisted dying with a person under 18. Despite opposition by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the Bill’s proposer, it was approved by a vote of 259 to 216. It was the first time Leadbeater had been defeated on the Bill in a Commons vote.
The government announced that rough sleeping will be decriminalised after more than 200 years. The Vagrancy Act 1824, introduced in response to increased homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and Industrial Revolution, will be scrapped by spring 2026.
This was an application for judicial review brought by an animal welfare charity challenging North East Lincolnshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the UK’s first full commercial scale onshore salmon farm proposed by AquaCultured Seafood Ltd. The farm, to be built in Cleethorpes, is designed to produce 5,000 tonnes of salmon per year.
The High Court had dismissed the application on paper in March 2025. However it was subsequently decided that Animal Equality’s challenge could proceed on the grounds that there was an arguable case that North East Lincolnshire Council’s planning officers had misdirected the Planning Committee by advising that animal welfare concerns could not be considered as material planning considerations under planning law. This potential misdirection raised a legal question about whether the approval of the salmon farm was lawful, warranting a full judicial review of the decision.
Arguments before the court
Animal Equality highlighted risks of welfare issues, such as the pain and suffering felt by animals kept in highly packed units, being eaten alive by sea lice; mass fish deaths including cannibalism and other problems such as high effluent levels in recirculating aquaculture systems. They referred to the deaths of 1.5 million fish at another onshore facility due to electricity supply interruptions. The Claimant did not seek to persuade the Court that the committee were required to take animal welfare concerns into account, rather that they should properly have been advised that it was open for them to do so if they wished to. They maintained that the Council’s planning committee members had been materially misled in relation to animal welfare concerns when the committee was advised that it could not take animal welfare concerns into account.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) have dropped their plans to require barristers to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion”. The proposed rewrite of Core Duty 8 would have placed barristers under a positive duty – something that had sparked widespread controversy about the BSB imposing its views of “social justice” on practitioners through “social engineering“. Notably, the rewrite was heavily criticised by former chair of the Bar Council who warned against the unintended detrimental consequences of “radical change”. Barbara Mills KC, current chair of the Bar Council has emphasised the continued commitment of the Bar Council to “equality, diversity and inclusion at the Bar”, but explained the concerns the Bar Council had about the positive duty “tak[ing] us backwards” due to the “lack [of] clarity needed for barristers to comply”. Although, director-general of the BSB, Mark Neale had promised that the proposed rewrite was “very genuine”, the BSB have now come out as saying that they will instead adopt a different strategy drawing on “all [their] regulatory tools” to advance equality of opportunity at the Bar.
The Ministry of Justice’s plan to roll out the chemical castration of convicted sex offenders has met with academic criticism, legal warnings, and comparisons to controversial schemes in other jurisdictions. The programme, announced this week by justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, is set to be piloted in twenty prisons in England and Wales as one of a number of “radical” reforms proposed in former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review. Professor David Grubin of Newcastle University joined other forensic psychiatry experts expressing scepticism of the measure, saying that, although it was likely to reduce reoffending rates significantly, its “mandatory element” was “very unethical and… most doctors I know would be resistant to it.” Similar ‘Anti-Libidinal Intervention’ (ALI) schemes have been been introduced on a voluntary basis in Denmark and Germany, and mandatorily in Poland and Moldova – in the latter case, lasting for barely one year, before the country’s constitutional court quashed the measure for what it ruled as its fundamental human rights infringements. ALI programmes elsewhere have seen widespread condemnation from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, citing in particular their violation of European Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading punishment), 8 and 12 (right to private life and to found a family). Marcus Johnstone of PCD Solicitors has said that the current proposals for ALIs in the UK would lead to challenges in the courts.
The Prime Minister vowed to stop Britain from becoming an “island of strangers” as the government released its immigration White Paper. Key measures include: increasing the threshold for skilled worker visas; only allowing a narrow list of occupations onto the Temporary Shortage List; ending the social care visa route; restricting the ability to bring dependants to Britain; and increasing English language requirements for visa holders and dependants.
The Assisted Dying Bill has returned to Parliament; if approved, it would allow terminally ill adults with less than 6 months to live to commit medically assisted suicide. In the committee stage, over 500 amendments to the Bill were considered and about a third approved. The changes include removing the need for High Court approval and increasing the commencement period from 2 years to 4. A second debate is scheduled for 13 June. If you want to hear more about the AD bill, particularly its “six month” clause and what that will mean in practice, tune in to Law Pod UK Episode 218 and Episode 219.
Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth, a disability rights activist, and a victim of coastal erosion are challenging the UK government’s climate adaptation programme (‘NAP3’) in the European Court of Human Rights. Published under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, NAP3 outlines the government’s objectives and policies for adapting to climate change. The claimants argue that its failings—particularly with regards to vulnerable individuals—violate their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Norfolk resident Kevin Jordan’s coastal home was demolished following damage caused by Storm Ciaran and rising sea levels, and had to be housed elsewhere by the local authority. Doug Paulley, a wheelchair user whose long-term health conditions are severely worsened by extreme heat, was concerned about NAP3’s lack of planning and funding across health and social sectors to alleviate the impact of heatwaves.
Their application for judicial review was dismissed by the High Court in October last year and they have since been refused permission to appeal. Chamberlain J rejected arguments that the policy was insufficiently specific or ambitious, holding that s.58 merely required NAP3 to ‘address’ identified climate risks not to eliminate or minimise them. The court was not obliged under s.3 of the Human Rights Act to construe the statute in a way that better promoted the interests protected by the ECHR, over an interpretation that promoted those interests less effectively. Applying Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland, the court found the UK’s approach fell within its margin of appreciation. For similar reasons, the judge rejected the substantive claims that the inadequacies of NAP3 were sufficient to breach their human rights to life (Article 2), private life (Article 8) and peaceful enjoyment of possessions (A1P1), nor were they discriminated against on account of their vulnerable situations (Article 14). Chamberlain J considered the Secretary of State had breached the Public Sector Equality Duty in failing to assess the impacts of NAP3 on disabled and elderly people, but declined to quash the decision on this basis. A retrospective assessment in response to the legal challenge was sufficient to discharge the obligation, because the conclusion was that the programme should remain unchanged. It remains for the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the UK courts’ stance complies with the Convention’s principles.
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.
Recent comments