Over the past two weeks, EJIL’s contributors have provided insightful analyses on a range of pressing legal issues. Among the topics discussed are recent resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council, developments in human rights law, the erosion of the international legal order, and significant updates in international law more broadly.
UN Security Council
Marco Longobardo analyzes three key legal issues stemming from UNSC Resolution 2773 (2025) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. First, he examines the Security Council’s authority to demand Rwanda’s withdrawal from the DRC, raising concerns about the limits of UNSC mandates over sovereign state actions. Second, he assesses the resolution’s directive for the M23 rebel group to cease hostilities and dismantle parallel state structures, discussing the legal complexities of imposing obligations on non-state actors. Lastly, he highlights the potential consequences for states failing to comply with the resolution, emphasizing the need for greater clarity in international legal enforcement mechanisms. Read the full post here.
Florian Kriener analyzes UNSC Resolution 2774, adopted on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which calls for a “lasting peace” but lacks key elements such as recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Kriener argues that the resolution undermines Ukraine’s position and international law by equating Russia’s illegal actions with Ukraine’s self-defense and framing the conflict as a mere “Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict.” The author further warns that the resolution could pave the way for a peace deal that legitimizes Russian territorial conquest and disregards international legal principles. Read the full post here.
Alejandro Rodiles Breton and Larissa van den Herik discuss Resolution 2744, which revamped the UN Security Council’s Focal Point mechanism for delisting individuals and entities from sanctions lists. The authors note that while the resolution shows incremental progress in improving due process standards for those listed under sanctions regimes, particularly outside the Al-Qaida/ISIS framework, it is not a complete solution. The enhanced Focal Point mechanism allows listed individuals or entities to request delisting, with a review process, but it lacks the Ombudsperson’s power to make binding recommendations. The authors highlight the need for ongoing improvements, including aligning the Focal Point’s procedures with the Ombudsperson’s practices and addressing additional issues, such as providing legal counsel for listed individuals. Read the full post here.
Human Rights
Katia Hamann explores the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finding in Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, where Italy was found in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to protect citizens from environmental risks. The author highlights the Court’s precautionary approach to the right to life, stressing that states must take proactive measures to prevent harm even when scientific certainty about the risk is lacking. Hamann finds that the judgment broadens the interpretation of state responsibility in environmental cases, reinforcing the duty to mitigate potential threats to human life. Read the full post here.
Isobel Renzulli explores the compatibility between the EU’s independent national mechanisms (INMs) and the UN’s National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), particularly regarding their roles in monitoring human rights compliance at EU borders under the 2024 EU migration regulations. Renzulli highlights potential tensions related to the scope of monitoring activities, the financial independence of these mechanisms, and how these mandates may overlap. The author argues that while using existing NPMs could improve migrant rights protection at borders, clarifying the relationship between the EU and international human rights laws is crucial to avoid conflicts and ensure effective monitoring. Read the full post here.
International Criminal Law
Vinícius Alexandre Fortes de Barros explores the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) case against Taliban leaders, focusing on gender-based persecution and the targeting of LGBTQI+ individuals. The author discusses the ICC Prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants, marking the first time the Court has recognized persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity as crimes against humanity. This legal development expands the interpretation of gender-based persecution and has significant implications for international human rights protections. Read the full post here.
Arne Bardelle and Arie Mora examine the role of universal jurisdiction (UJ) in prosecuting international crimes committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The authors highlight the challenges faced by both Ukraine and other countries in investigating and prosecuting these crimes, especially given Ukraine’s limited domestic capacity and the complexities of extraterritorial jurisdiction. They further argue for a more proactive approach to UJ, alongside domestic and international efforts, to ensure accountability and prevent impunity for perpetrators of war crimes. Read the full post here.
Climate Change
Geoff Gilbert and Tamara Wood discuss the increasing relevance of climate change and disasters in international protection claims, despite the absence of a formal “climate refugee” category. The authors highlight the newly developed Practical Toolkit, created by legal experts in collaboration with UNHCR, to guide decision-makers in assessing asylum claims influenced by climate-related displacement. The piece also explores evolving legal interpretations, including international refugee law, human rights law, and regional mechanisms, emphasizing that climate-related factors can contribute to persecution or inhuman treatment, thus justifying international protection. Read the full post here.
Felix Lange and Julian Schophaus discuss the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change and its implications for the Paris Agreement, particularly the legal obligation of state parties to progressively enhance their national determined contributions (NDCs) every five years. The authors argue that the Paris Agreement’s language and recent state submissions during the ICJ proceedings support the view that states are legally bound to become more ambitious in their climate commitments, contradicting any notion that they may lower their goals. They further highlight a consensus among states against downgrading their emissions targets, reinforcing the legal obligation for progression in climate mitigation efforts. Read the full post here.
World Health Organization
Donato Greco and Giulia Perrone examine the legal and political implications of the United States’ decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) under President Donald Trump’s administration in 2025. The authors discuss the legal basis for withdrawal, highlighting the unique U.S. reservation that allows it to exit, while other countries, such as Argentina and Italy, lack a clear legal pathway to do the same. The post concludes that while international law may prevent certain states from officially withdrawing, the WHO must engage diplomatically to maintain cooperation and prevent broader disengagement from global health governance. Read the full post here.
The International Legal Order
Kushtrim Istrefi and Luca Pasquet discuss how the erosion of international law, particularly the disregard for legal norms and institutions by powerful states, is becoming increasingly problematic. The authors emphasize that the attitude of states toward international law, such as the willingness to violate it for national interests, weakens its authority and undermines its role in global affairs. The authors further warn that this shift in attitude could lead to a breakdown of the international legal system, drawing parallels to the failures of the League of Nations and the dangers posed by ignoring international law’s principles. Read the full post here.
Devika Hovell critiques the U.S.’s evolving approach to international law under the Trump administration, especially in relation to its imposition of sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Hovell argues that these sanctions reflect a broader shift towards an isolationist, unilateral approach to global governance, undermining international institutions and legal frameworks designed to ensure accountability for war crimes. Hovell calls for legal and diplomatic strategies to resist these actions, protect the rule of law, and preserve the integrity of international justice systems. Read the full post here.
Law of The Sea
Jacques Hartmann argues that attacks on undersea cables and pipelines should be classified as piracy under UNCLOS, allowing states to board and prosecute vessels engaged in such acts. Hartmann challenges the traditional interpretation of Article 101, which requires a “two-ship” rule, highlighting that subparagraph (a)(ii) permits piracy charges for acts against property in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This broader interpretation offers a practical legal framework to address growing threats to critical subsea infrastructure without relying on lengthy treaty negotiations or politically fraught UNSC resolutions. Read the full post here.
International Court of Justice
Mais Qandeel examines the legality of Israel’s potential annexation of parts of the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) and analyzes the international legal implications of such actions, particularly in light of the 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion. Qandeel emphasizes the unlawful nature of territorial annexation, whether de jure or de facto, and the obligation of third states not to recognize or assist in maintaining Israel’s illegal control over the oPt. The author discusses the legal consequences for other states, including their duty to prevent annexation and refrain from recognizing the changes in the region’s status. Read the full post here.
Recent events and announcements can be found here.
Read the latest post on EJIL’s news here.
