* Spyridoula Katsoni, ‘Is the Obligation Not to Refoule a Positive Obligation? An Intermediate Approach Toward the Classification Dilemma’, Human Rights Law Review (2025):
‘Although the distinction of international obligations as positive or negative ones is well-established in international law, the classification of the obligation not to refoule has given rise to a disagreement in relevant academic writings. The present article contributes to this academic discussion by arguing for an intermediate position, whereby the obligation not to refoule is perceived as a mixed obligation, which is comprised of both negative and positive obligations. Doing so, the article outlines the series of positive and negative obligations that have been identified as stemming from non-refoulement and further evinces that the intermediate approach toward the obligation’s classification better corresponds to the recent scholarly and jurisprudential developments, embraces non-refoulement’s peremptory character, allows a consistent classification of the obligation in all fields of international law and enhances the overall protection that may be afforded to protection-seekers under non-refoulement by ‘hardening’ the obligations that are interpreted as stemming therefrom.’
* Patrick Leisure, ‘Does the Osman Test Go to School? Recent Developments Concerning States’ Positive Obligations to Protect Children in School’ Human Rights Law Review (2025):
‘In light of the recent Biba v Albania case, this article takes a closer look at states' positive obligations to protect children in school. It tracks a distinct divergence in judicial preference for how positive obligations apply in the school context and illustrates how the Strasbourg Court has inconsistently invoked and applied the Osman test in schooling cases. Recommending that the Strasbourg Court clarify in future case-law the Court's positive obligations doctrine on states to protect children in school, the article concludes with a reflection and a recommendation, based on Judge Tulkens' concurrence in Kayak v Turkey, regarding the Strasbourg Court's role in this important area.’
* Jens Theilen, ‘Framing Migration in Human Rights: How the Reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights Legitimises Border Regimes’ European Journal of Migration and Law (2025):
‘This article seeks to trouble the idea that human rights provide a progressive standard in matters of migration. It does so by drawing on frames analysis to investigate the way that the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) legitimises border regimes rather than challenging them. The article considers three issues as examples. First, the ECtHR’s understanding of racial discrimination moves colonial histories and political economy out of the frame, thus preventing contestation of border regimes in those terms. Second, the ECtHR’s treatment of vulnerability is based on state categorisation of migrants, which normalises the violence of border regimes in all but the most extreme cases of vulnerability. Third, the ECtHR’s approach to human trafficking involves a framing of states as saviours, thus setting up border controls as a positive measure rather than a root cause of trafficking. The article ends by revisiting the potential and limitations of human rights set against the horizon of border abolition.’
* Rainer Grote, ‘The International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights’ in Achilles Skordas en Lisa Mardikian (eds), Research Handbook on the International Court of Justice (Elgar 2025):
‘While both the ICJ and the ECtHR have undergone important changes recently, these have been far more dramatic in the case of the ECtHR, culminating in the far-reaching reforms of Protocol No. 11 that turned it into a body with compulsory jurisdiction and compulsory right to individual petition on all important fundamental rights issues. But this has also exposed the ECtHR to the risk of pushback by State parties which is greater than in the case of the ICJ where changes have been more gradual and limited. It is therefore important that the relationship between the two courts has largely been mutually supportive, with the ECtHR preserving the nexus with the jurisprudence of the ICJ on issues of general international law and the latter providing crucial backing to the dynamic development of the ECHR system through its mainstreaming of human rights in the international legal system.’
* Corina Heri, ‘Mattering in the Anthropocene: the ECtHR’s domesticating framing of climate change’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2025):
‘Climate change is subject to a wide range of legal ‘framings’, or emphases of what is considered legally important and relevant. This includes the decision to frame it as a human rights issue at all. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) adopted such a framing, recognising that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) places States under regulatory and procedural obligations concerning climate change. However, closer inspection shows that this rights framing is a narrow one, entailing a restrictive understanding of who and what matters to human rights law. The present article terms this ‘domestication’, or the application of a frame-within-a-frame that allowed the Court to issue guidance characterised by a high level of abstraction and deference. This approach prioritises homogenised domestic rights-holders and domestic decision-makers while avoiding equity concerns and leaving many victims outside the frame of ECHR protection. Setting out the problems of domestication, the present article contemplates concepts of success in climate cases and argues for a more granular, critical engagement that takes material vulnerabilities seriously.’
