Two-time Olympic champion runner Caster Semenya has won a partial victory at the European Court of Human Rights in her seven-year legal fight against track and field’s sex eligibility rules.
The court’s 17-judge highest chamber said in a 15-2 ruling on Thursday that Semenya had some of her rights to a fair hearing violated before Switzerland’s Supreme Court, where she had appealed against a decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It had ruled in favour of track’s international governing body, World Athletics.
Her case should now go back to the Swiss federal court in Lausanne – and will be watched closely by other sports that have passed or are reviewing their own rules on eligibility in women’s events.
The original case between Semenya and Monaco-based World Athletics was about whether female athletes who have specific medical conditions, a typically male chromosome pattern and naturally high testosterone levels should be allowed to compete freely in women’s sports.
Europe’s top human rights court in Strasbourg, France, dismissed other aspects of the appeal filed by Semenya, who was in court Thursday to hear the judgement read. It awarded her $94,000 from the state of Switzerland “in respect of costs and expenses”.
The European court’s ruling does not overturn the World Athletics rules that in effect ended Semenya’s career running the 800 metres after she had won two Olympic gold medals and three world titles since emerging on the global stage as a teenager in 2009.
The key legal point in Semenya’s win was the Swiss Federal Court had not carried out a “rigorous judicial review” that was required because Semenya had no choice but to pursue her case through the CAS’s “mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction”, the judges in Strasbourg ruled.
Governing bodies of sports oblige athletes and national federations to take their disputes to the sports court in the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) home city of Lausanne.
“The court considered, however, that the Federal Supreme Court’s review had fallen short of that requirement,” the European Court of Human Rights said in a statement.
Semenya last competed in the world championships in 2022 [File: Michael Kappeler/picture alliance via Getty Images]
In dismissing other elements of the South African runner’s case, including if she had been discriminated against, the court judged it “did not fall within Switzerland’s jurisdiction in respect of those complaints”.
World Athletics, led by its president, Sebastian Coe, has said its rules maintain fairness because Semenya has an unfair, male-like athletic advantage from her higher testosterone. Semenya argues her testosterone is a genetic gift.
World Athletics and the CAS did not immediately respond to the ruling. The IOC declined to comment on a case it is not directly involved in.
Thursday’s win followed a legal victory from the same court two years ago for Semenya.
That judgement, which found she had faced discrimination, opened a way for the Swiss Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss her appeal against the CAS verdict in favour of World Athletics.
The CAS in 2019 ruled 2-1 that discrimination against Semenya was “necessary, reasonable and proportionate” to maintain fairness in women’s track events.
World Athletics drew up its rules in 2018, forcing Semenya and other female athletes with differences in sex development to suppress their testosterone to be eligible for international women’s events.
Semenya last competed internationally in the 800 in 2019, winning at the Prefontaine Classic on the Diamond League circuit in Eugene, Oregon. It extended her winning streak to more than 30 consecutive races before the rules made her ineligible.
Her winning time then of 1 minute 55.7 seconds was faster than the gold medal-winning time at the 2024 Paris Olympics but not the 1:55.21 run by Athing Mu of the United States at the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021.
Semenya returned to Eugene in 2022 to race in the 5,000-metre world championship but did not advance from the heats.
FIFA’s 2025 Club World Cup reaches its final in the United States on Sunday with a blockbuster ending lined up for the most lucrative tournament in football history.
The expanded 32-team edition has seen the best-ranked teams from their continents across the last four years whittled down to the last two.
Al Jazeera takes a closer look at the finale to the sport’s global governing body’s attempt to put the club game on the international stage.
Who’s in the FIFA Club World Cup final?
France’s Paris-Saint Germain, the newly crowned European champions, are the headline name in the final.
The Qatar-backed Parisians trounced Inter Milan in the UEFA Champions League final – the tournament FIFA are hoping to supersede – in May to lift that trophy for the first time.
They face English Premier League club Chelsea who had fallen somewhat from the heights they reached during the Roman Abramovich era, when the Russian billionaire heavily funded the Londoners’ assault on the domestic and European titles.
The Blues did bounce back to win the UEFA Champions League in 2021, upsetting Manchester City in the final, but their last domestic league title was secured in 2017.
How much has PSG made at the Club World Cup?
PSG has earned $88.4m to $113.8m for reaching the final, the amount depending on a participation fee.
The prize fund differs for each team depending on how many matches they won across the tournament.
The Parisians beat Real Madrid 4-0 in their semifinal on Wednesday to mark their fifth win of the tournament.
Paris Saint-Germain’s Goncalo Ramos shoots at the goal during the semifinal against Real Madrid [File: Mike Segar/Reuters]
How much has Chelsea made at the Club World Cup?
Chelsea are believed to have earned a figure very close to that of PSG. The Blues, like their Parisians, won two and lost one in their group stage fixtures.
Both clubs are believed to have been rewarded with similar participation fees prior to the tournament – and PSG’s Champions League success in May.
Chelsea beat Fluminense 2-0 in their last-four clash on Tuesday.
How much will the winner of the Club World Cup receive?
The winner of Sunday’s final will receive $40m.
Along with the prize money claimed across the matches, and the participation fees, both Chelsea and PSG have the chance to earn well in excess of $125m in total.
What titles have PSG already won this season?
PSG not only secured the UEFA Champions League final for the first time, but the Parisians also claimed both the French league and cup titles.
Their first treble – rare across the continent – could now be turned into a quadruple.
With the UEFA Super Cup to come next month, PSG could equal Manchester City’s unique five-trophy achievement in 2023.
Has Chelsea ever won the Club World Cup?
Chelsea were crowned champions of FIFA’s showpiece club event in 2021 as they beat Brazil’s Palmeiras 2-1 in the final.
The Blues were defeated finalists in 2012, when they lost to another Brazilian side, Corinthians.
Chelsea are striving to become the first English side to win the CWC for a second time.
Chelsea’s key midfielder Cole Palmer will need to be at his best against PSG if the Blues hope to regain the FIFA Club World Cup trophy four years after winning it the first time [File: Franck Fifa/AFP]
Why are Chelsea at the Club World Cup?
Chelsea lifted the UEFA Conference League this season by beating Real Betis in the final, while finishing fourth in the English top flight.
It was their 2021 win in the Champions League final that aided their ranking in Europe, however, which qualified the London-based club for this edition of the Club World Cup.
Where will the Club World Cup final be held?
The final will be staged at Metlife Stadium in New Jersey, the same venue that will host the finale of the 2026 FIFA World Cup next year.
The multipurpose venue, which is currently home to the NFL’s New York Giants and New York Jets, holds a capacity of 82,500.
How to follow and watch the Club World Cup final?
We’ll bring you our usual comprehensive text and photo commentary stream, with four hours of live build-up, on Al Jazeera Sport on Sunday.
You can also subscribe to DAZN, the official broadcaster of the tournament, to watch the final.
PSG Star forward Ousmane Dembele and his teammates will be gunning for their first FIFA Club World Cup trophy at MetLife Stadium on Sunday [File: Patricia de Melo Moreira/AFP]
Doctors in Gaza have been forced to operate in darkness as hospitals face a power crisis due to Israel’s war on the enclave. Two of Gaza’s largest hospitals have issued desperate pleas for help, warning without power the medical centres will be turned into ‘graveyards’.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio have held rare face-to-face talks on the sidelines of an ASEAN meeting in Malaysia, discussing the war in Ukraine, as well as developments in Iran and Syria.
“A substantive and frank exchange of views took place on the settlement of the situation around Ukraine, the situation around Iran and Syria, as well as a number of other international issues,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement following the meeting on Thursday in Kuala Lumpur.
Both sides reportedly expressed interest in easing tensions and resuming dialogue in areas beyond the battlefield.
Lavrov and Rubio “confirmed their mutual desire to find peaceful solutions to conflicts, restore Russian-American economic and humanitarian cooperation, and facilitate unimpeded contacts between the societies of the two countries”, the ministry added.
The Russian side described the meeting as constructive, saying dialogue between Moscow and Washington would continue.
Rubio, speaking to reporters after the 50-minute meeting, said he had delivered a clear message about the need for progress on the war in Ukraine.
“I had a frank and important conversation with Minister Lavrov,” Rubio said. “We need to see a roadmap moving forward about how this conflict can conclude.”
He said US President Donald Trump remained disappointed with what Washington, DC views as a lack of flexibility from Moscow.
Trump has been growing increasingly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying the Russian leader was throwing a lot of “b*******” at US efforts to end the war that started with Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Rubio also signalled that a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi may take place during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gathering. “I think we’re working on that – maybe, maybe we’ll meet,” he said at a press conference.
Israeli soldiers bound Mohamed Yousef’s hands behind his back as they dragged him to a military camp near the occupied West Bank’s Masafer Yatta, a collection of Palestinian villages in Hebron governorate, in late June.
With him were his mother, his wife and two sisters, arrested on their land for confronting armed Israeli settlers.
Settlers often graze their animals on Palestinian land to assert control, signal unrestricted access and lay the groundwork for establishing illegal outposts, cutting Palestinians off from their farms and livestock.
Yousef knew this, so he went out to defend his farm when he saw the armed settlers.
But as is often the case, it was Mohamed, a Palestinian, who was punished. At the military camp, he was left with his family in the scorching sun for hours.
While Mohamed and his family were released the next day, they fear they will not have the means to defend themselves for much longer.
“The police, the [Israeli] army and settlers often attack us all at once. What are we supposed to do?” Yousef said.
The Israeli military did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on the incident.
Useful pretext
Things might be about to get worse for Yousef and his family, who, along with about 1,200 other Palestinians, could soon be expelled from their lands.
On June 17, during the zenith of Israel’s war on Iran, the Israeli government submitted a letter, a copy of which has been seen by Al Jazeera, to the Israeli High Court of Justice that included a request by the army to demolish at least 12 villages in Masafer Yatta and expel the inhabitants.
The Israeli army argued that it has to demolish the villages to convert the area into a military “firing” or training zone, according to Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups.
However, a 2015 study by Kerem Novat, an Israeli civil society organisation, found that such justifications are a ruse to seize Palestinian land. From the time Israel occupied swaths of the West Bank in the 1967 war, it has converted about one-third of the West Bank into a “closed military zone”, according to the study.
And yet, military drills have never been carried out in 80 percent of these zones after Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes.
Palestinians carry their belongings as they are forced to leave their homes after Israel issues demolition orders for 104 buildings in Tulkarem, occupied West Bank on July 3, 2025 [Faruk Hanedar/Anadolu]
The study concluded that the military confiscates Palestinian land as a strategy to “reduce the Palestinian population’s ability to use the land and to transfer as much of it as possible to Israeli settlers”.
Yousef fears his village could suffer a similar fate following the state’s petition to the High Court.
“I have no idea what’s going to happen to us,” Mohamed told Al Jazeera. “Even if we are forced to leave, then where are we supposed to go? Where will we live?”
Rigged system
Many fear the Israeli High Court will side with the army and evict all Palestinians from “Firing Zone 918”, a battle that has been ongoing for decades.
Israeli courts have played a central role in rubber-stamping Israel’s policies in the occupied West Bank, described as apartheid by many, by approving the demolition of entire Palestinian communities, according to Amnesty International.
The communities currently at risk were first handed an eviction notice and expelled in 1999, and told that their villages had been declared a military training zone, which the army dubbed “Firing Zone 918”.
The army claimed that the herding communities living in this “zone” were not “permanent residents”, despite the communities saying they lived there long before the state of Israel was formed by ethnically cleansing Palestinians in 1948, an event known as the Nakba.
With little recourse other than navigating an unfriendly Israeli legal system to resist their dispossession, the communities and human rights lawyers representing them initiated a legal battle to stop the evictions in Israeli district courts and the High Court.
In 2000, a judge ordered the army to allow the communities to return to their villages until a final ruling was issued.
Human rights lawyers have since filed countless petitions and appeals to delay and hinder the army’s attempt to expel the villagers.
“The [Israelis]…have been trying to expel us for decades,” said 63-year-old Nidal Younis, the head of the Masafer Yatta Council.
Then, in May 2022, the High Court ordered the expulsion of eight Masafer Yatta villages. The court ruled that the inhabitants were not “permanent residents”, ignoring evidence that the defence provided.
“We brought [the court] artefacts, photo analyses and ancient tools, used by the families for decades, that were representative of permanent residence,” said Netta Amar-Shiff, one of the lawyers representing the villagers.
“But the court dismissed all the evidence we brought as irrelevant.”
Expediting demolitions
Amar-Shiff and her colleagues filed another case in early 2023 to argue that military drills must, at the very least, not result in the demolition of Palestinian villages or the expulsion of inhabitants in the area.
The legal battle, and others, is now being upended by the Israeli army and government’s request to evict and demolish all the villages in the desired military zone, said Amar-Shiff.
In an attempt to fast-track that request, the Civil Planning Bureau, an Israeli military body responsible for building permits, issued a decree on June 18 to reject all pending Palestinian building requests in “Firing Zone 918”. The United Nations and Israeli human rights groups have been notified of the new decree, although it has not been published on any government website.
Across Israel and the occupied West Bank, Palestinians and Israelis need to obtain building permits from Israeli authorities to build and live in any structure.
An Israeli policeman stands by as a bulldozer demolishes the house of Fakhri Abu Diab, in Silwan, occupied East Jerusalem, February 14, 2024 [Ammar Awad/Reuters]
According to the Israeli human rights group Bimkom, Palestinians in Area C, the largest of three zones in the occupied West Bank that were created out of the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, are practically always denied permits, while permits for Israeli settlers are almost always approved.
Palestinians in Masafer Yatta still submitted many building requests, hoping the administrative process would delay the demolition of their homes.
However, the Central Planning Bureau’s recent decree, issued to align with the army’s prior announcement, supersedes all these pending requests and paves the way for an outright rejection of all of them, facilitating more ethnic cleansing, according to activists, lawyers and human rights groups.
Once the decree is published, lawyers representing Palestinians from “Firing Zone 918” will have to go to the High Court for a final and definitive ruling, which is expected within a few months.
“There are many judges in the High Court who will either dismiss this case on its face or not order the army to stop demolitions until they rule,” Amar-Shiff told Al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, settlers and Israeli troops are escalating attacks against Palestinians living in the area.
Sami Hourani, a researcher from Masafer Yatta for Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, said the Israeli army has confiscated dozens of cars since declaring its intent to ethnically cleanse the villages.
He added that the army is arresting solidarity activists trying to visit the area, as well as helping settlers to attack and expel Palestinians.
“We are in an isolation stage now,” Hourani told Al Jazeera, adding that the villages in Masafer Yatta are under siege and cut off from the outside world.
The United Kingdom and France are close to a new agreement aimed at preventing tens of thousands of migrants from crossing the English Channel from France in small boats, UK media reported on Thursday.
French President Emmanuel Macron arrived in London on Tuesday for a three-day visit, marking the first state visit by a European leader since Britain’s exit from the European Union.
Here is all we know about the “one-in-one-out” migrant deal being discussed during a bilateral summit between Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London.
What’s in the deal Macron and Starmer are discussing?
The deal is aimed at deterring migrants from making dangerous trips across the English Channel from France to the UK in small boats. This year so far, more than 20,000 people have undertaken this journey.
At the start of the summit with Macron on Thursday, Starmer said the two must “apply our collective strength and leadership” to the challenges of undocumented migration.
“We all agree that the situation in the Channel cannot go on as it is so we’re bringing new tactics into play and a new intent to tackle illegal migration and break the business model of the criminal gangs.”
Many migrants without visas or permits departing France by sea attempt to cross to the UK in small, inflatable boats. They frequently pay large sums of money to gangs who arrange the boats in northern France. Journeys can be incredibly dangerous and people have died making the crossing.
Under a new agreement, France would agree to take back asylum seekers who have crossed over to the UK and who cannot prove a family connection to the UK. For each migrant France takes back, the UK would grant asylum to one migrant from France who can prove a family connection to the UK.
During the initial stages of the agreement, details of which were reported by French newspaper Le Monde, the UK would initially send about 50 migrants to France per week. Le Monde also reported that the UK would only be able to return 2,600 migrants in a single year.
The UK press quoted a government source on Thursday that plans would be scaled up if the initial scheme is successful.
Who is to blame for the influx of people by boat to the UK?
Both France and the UK have laid the blame on each other.
One of France’s main criticisms of the UK is that it attracts migrants without visas because UK laws are too lenient or not adequately enforced. In his speech to Parliament during his state visit on Tuesday, Macron said that one-third of all migrants arriving in France intend to move on to the UK.
During negotiations with the UK 18 months ago when he was interior minister, Gerald Darmanin, France’s current justice minister, said: “Britain must do something to make itself less attractive and change the rules of their labour market because you can work without papers in the UK,” he said.
The UK disputes this, saying people are drawn to it because of family or diaspora ties, as well as many being able to speak English. Instead, some politicians in the UK have blamed France for not policing its northern shores enough. However, Starmer is also expected to unveil new plans to crack down harder on illegal work in the UK.
France, in turn, says it is making huge efforts to deter migrant departures from northern beaches and to take action against people-smuggling gangs.
A group of migrants walk back to their makeshift camp at sunrise after a failed attempt to cross the Channel to the UK on a small boat, in Sangatte, near Calais, France, on August 10, 2023 [Pascal Rossignol/Reuters]
Why is this agreement being discussed now?
The deal is being discussed because of the rising number of unauthorised migrants arriving from France to the UK, Peter Walsh, a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, told Al Jazeera.
Just one year since Starmer’s Labour party won a landslide election, the prime minister’s popularity has tanked in the UK – in large part because of the failure to stop undocumented migration – while support for the far-right, anti-migration Reform UK party has soared.
In particular, Reform’s manifesto pledges to clamp down on migrants coming to the UK in small boats. It states: “Illegal migrants who come to the UK will be detained and deported. And if needed, migrants in small boats will be picked up and taken back to France.”
The Conservative Party, which was in power before Starmer won last year’s general election, pledged to impose a binding cap for legal migration and to deport asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means to Rwanda for processing and potential resettlement. Labour scrapped this plan as soon as it came to power.
As of July 7, immigration and asylum stand as the most significant issue in the UK, at 51 percent, according to polling by YouGov.
According to commentary in UK media, Starmer’s meeting with Macron also holds symbolic significance, as it allows the British PM to show that he has been able to maintain a good relationship with his main European partners since he negotiated a “reset” trade deal with the EU in May.
How many people cross the English Channel in small boats each year?
This year, 21,117 people crossed the English Channel from France to the UK in small boats as of July 6, according to UK government data. This was a 56 percent increase in the number of people crossing in small boats during the same period in 2024.
In the whole of 2024, nearly 37,000 people crossed the English Channel in small boats, bringing the weekly average to about 700 arrivals.
In the past year, 73 people have died trying to cross the English Channel, the highest number recorded in one year so far, according to data by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an intergovernmental organisation within the United Nations.
Small boat arrivals made up one-third of all asylum applications in 2024, according to an analysis by the Migration Observatory based on statistics from the UK Home Office.
In this drone view, an inflatable dinghy carrying migrants makes its way towards England in the English Channel, UK, on August 6, 2024 [Chris J Ratcliffe/Reuters]
Why do so many people make this risky crossing?
Walsh told Al Jazeera that people take the risk to cross the Channel for a wide range of reasons. “One is the presence of family members, friends, and members of their community already in the UK,” he said.
He explained that because the UK is no longer part of the EU following Brexit, it does not have access to the bloc’s asylum fingerprint database any more. Therefore, British authorities cannot know if people who arrive in small boats have already claimed asylum in an EU country.
“If it did, the UK would be able to dismiss the claims,” he said. “The UK is also no longer a part of the Dublin system that would allow for such asylum claimants to be returned to the EU. Migrants understand this, so view reaching the UK as giving them another chance at securing residence in the UK.”
The Dublin regulation – the framework for the EU’s rules on asylum seekers – establishes the criteria that determine which EU member state is responsible for examining asylum applications submitted by someone who is originally from a third country.
Between 2018 and 2024, 68 percent of asylum applications from migrants who arrived in small boats were granted in the UK. This was higher than the grant rate for asylum applications generally, which was 57 percent for the same duration. This may be another reason people are attracted to the UK, experts say.
What steps have France and the UK taken to stop boats crossing the English Channel?
In March 2023, the UK, under former Conservative PM Rishi Sunak, signed a three-year deal with France, under which the UK agreed to pay France 480 million pounds ($650m) to tighten its border patrols and surveillance.
Under this deal, France agreed to deploy 500 officers and provide a new detention centre in France, which would be operational by the end of 2026. France also agreed to increase funding for stricter enforcement, without specifying the amount of money.
Separately, in June this year, France agreed to come up with a plan to intercept small boats heading to the UK, for the first time, expanding its navy with six patrol boats that will rescue migrants but also intercept them from heading to the UK.
Paris has agreed to do this for boats which are within 300 metres (1,000ft) from the French shore, and has asked the UK for extra funding to fund the police and equipment to enforce these interceptions, according to UK media.
French police have recently taken to damaging the small boats, slashing their rubber frames with knives. The French Interior Ministry told The Associated Press that the police had not been ordered to do this, however.
What are the criticisms of the new deal under discussion?
Since an average of 700 migrants enter the UK by small boat each week, if the UK government sends an average of 50 people back to France per week, that would amount to just one in 14 being returned.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp of the opposition Conservative Party told The Times newspaper: “This deal will mean that 94 percent of illegal migrants crossing the Channel will get to stay. That is pathetic and will not deter anyone. By contrast, the Rwanda deterrent would have seen 100 percent of illegal migrants removed and that would have worked to deter people crossing the Channel. Keir Starmer’s failure continues.”
The plan could potentially face a legal challenge under the UN Refugee Convention, which mandates asylum seekers’ rights to request protection.
French officials are also critical of the deal, cautious it could result in France becoming a “return hub” for migrants that the UK refuses to accept. “We are putting ourselves into the hands of the British without minimal reciprocal elements,” an unnamed French official involved in the talks told Le Monde.
The policy could also provide ammunition against Macron for his right-wing political critics, who may question why he has agreed to take back migrants wanting to live in Britain.
The UK is not subject to the EU’s Dublin regulations, while France is. This makes the status of migrants returning from Britain to France unclear, causing concern among other European nations, who are upset with France for bilaterally negotiating the deal without consulting the EU.
“Why should other Europeans be obliged to take these returns under EU, Dublin rules when they result from French obligation under a bilateral deal with the UK, a non-EU member, that France negotiated without asking us?” The Times quoted an unnamed EU diplomat as saying on Thursday.
A deal is also opposed by the southern European countries of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain, who have been receiving unauthorised migrants at an increasing rate, the Financial Times reported. These countries are concerned that if migrants are sent back to France from the UK, they may try to enter southern Europe from France instead.
As the 2000s came to a close, the immigrant population multiplied by more than fivefold in Spain, Italy and Greece, according to a 2016 research article written by scholars from the University of Liege in Belgium.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said on Wednesday during Prime Minister’s Questions in Parliament that the UK must refuse to accept “undocumented males” coming in small boats as part of a deal with France. Farage said Starmer should not bow to an “increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French president”. Starmer responded, saying Farage’s approach is to “break everything and claim that’s how you fix things”.
