In light of the fast-paced changes already taking place in the first quarter of 2026, it is worth reflecting on the role that courts and judges play in upholding democracy and the rule of law. At a time when many states are pushing back against their international commitments, the importance of international courts in maintaining international law in all its forms should be reinforced rather pushed aside.
The 2025 Global Justice Academy Human Rights Lecture was delivered by Judge Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Judge Arnardóttir has developed significant expertise within the field of international human rights as she previously worked as a professor in Human Rights Law at multiple universities and as a legal practitioner in her native Iceland., She has published extensively on human rights law works including her PhD thesis titled “Equality and Non-Discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights; Towards a Substantive Approach” which she earned in 2002 from the University of Edinburgh Law School. Another ground-breaking feat Judge Arnardóttir has accomplished is being the first Icelandic woman to be elected as a judge to serve on the European Court of Human Rights.
Her lecture, titled “The European Convention on Human Rights at 75: Past milestones and current challenges”, began with by providing an historical overview of the European Convention framework, before diving deeper into a discussion on current issues. Given the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Judge Arnardóttir spent some time reflecting on the accomplishments and milestones of the Convention as it is ‘the first instrument to give effect and binding force to certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948…’ and the first treaty to establish supranational order to ensure the States fulfil their duties with regards to human rights protections. In the past, the Court faced a significant challenge in the form of its immense caseload which threatened to destabilize the system; an issue that was further exacerbated by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Eventually, Protocol 14 was initiated in 2010 to assist in the filtration process of cases to ease the workload but was met with criticism by petitioners and Member States—a common theme throughout the remainder of Judge Arnardóttir’s lecture.
The core of Judge Arnardóttir’s lecture focused on three themes currently faced by the Strasbourg Court: Member State sovereignty concerns combined with democratic backsliding; technological and environmental developments within societies; and human rights issues linked with climate change. She expressed concern about the tone of the recent open letter by a number of Council of Europe Member States criticising the ECtHR’s jurisprudence pertaining to migration. She emphasized that only ‘6% of migration cases found violations’ while utilising the process-based review, or procedural review, method. Hence, Member States are not being micromanaged, and they are also duty-bound by the Refugee Convention for migration issues. Furthermore, asylum-seekers are being denied access into countries despite war and turmoil existing within their home states. She emphasized her concerns with the lack of empathy on Member States in terms of migration causing democratic backsliding which may pose a threat to human rights.
Technological advancements have led to hybrid-wars perpetuating misinformation and cyberattacks in elections. Judge Arnardóttir invoked the cases of Bradshaw and Others v. UK (2025), in which the argument was the state had a duty to protect its electorate from Russian interference during elections, and Google LLC and Others v. Russia (2025) concerning violations of Article 10 of the Convention, freedom of expression. Both are examples of how technological challenges impact human rights—and provide evidence of the adaptability of the ECHR to match societies’ current dilemmas. During the Q and A, Judge Arnardóttir made clear that the Court will adapt to respond to Artificial Intelligence and other humanoid-type systems if it becomes an issue.
Lastly, the issue of climate change and related human rights implication have given rise to a multitude of applications to the ECtHR, as a result of adverse effects on health and in relation to risks for future generations. Judge Arnardóttir reflected on key decisions from the Court, such KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024), where the ECtHR found a link between human rights and climate change, and Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (2025) concerning oil and gas licensing by the State. The Court interpreted the ECHR to find that Member States are under an obligation to act in good faith and make environmental assessments to ensure they are adhering to human rights in relation to climate change. Judge Arnardóttir underscored that the Court must target current challenges but do so in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Her reflections on these current challenges and gave all present valuable insight into the decision-making process by the ECtHR and how the Court aims to combat these issues.
By Laura Early, LLM Candidate at the University of Edinburgh
