states to engage in “hit-and-run” violations by innovating novel requirements and hurdles on foreign academic (or other) service providers as needed on the expectation that faits accomplis cannot readily be undone. Hungary argued that the Commission was driven by political motivations, and that the concern of international trade in the infringement procedure was fabricated. This argument was apparently reinforced by the Trump administration’s failure to voice any concerns regarding Hungary’s expulsion of the CEU—suggesting that the 2017 amendment generated no genuine risk of international liability for the EU and that the GATS was used as a pretext to protect fundamental rights. These circumstances could have been relevant given that, in WTO law, member states are the sole legal beneficiaries of trade concessions and they alone have standing to enforce them. From a cynical perspective, the Commission made up a hypothetical trade dispute and then solved it by bringing an infringement proceeding. The Court rejected this objection rather summarily as irrelevant: “the Commission enjoys a [full] discretion as to whether or not to commence such proceedings, which is not for review by the Court” (para. 56). Stated another way, law is law and, so long as legal claims are based on a plausible interpretation of legal texts, the Court can adjudicate them. CSONGOR ISTVÁN NAGY ELKH Center for Social Sciences, Budapest University of Szeged, School of Law doi:10.1017/ajil.2021.45 Inter-American Court of Human Rights—right to a healthy environment—Indigenous rights INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES OF THE LHAKA HONHAT (OUR LAND)ASSOCIATION V.ARGENTINA. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment. At https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/ articulos/seriec_400_ing.pdf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 6, 2020. On February 6, 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) declared in Lhaka Honhat Association v. Argentina that Argentina violated Indigenous groups’ rights to communal property, a healthy environment, cultural identity, food, and water. 1 For the first time in a contentious case, the Court analyzed these rights autonomously based on Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) 2 and ordered specific restitution measures, including actions to provide access to adequate food and water, and the recovery of forest resources and Indigenous culture. The decision marks a significant milestone for protecting Indigenous peo- ples’ rights and expanding the autonomous rights to a healthy environment, water, and food, which are now directly justiciable under the Inter-American human rights system. The case concerned a request for recognition of land ownership by over ninety Indigenous communities that make up the Association of Indigenous Communities Lhaka Honhat (Association) in the Argentine province of Salta. Although the communities have occupied 1 Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Ass’n v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 400 (Feb. 6, 2020) [hereinafter Lhaka Honhat]. 2 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS123 [hereinafter ACHR]. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 706 Vol. 115:4