The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-fifth session from May 2 to July 23, 1993, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Julio Barboza of Argentina. The Commission elaborated a substantially complete draft statute of an international criminal court in a working group, considered aspects of state responsibility, commenced drafting articles on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, began its second reading on non-navigational uses of international watercourses, and made recommendations for its future work. The Commission continued its innovative use of working groups and subgroups to expedite its work and, consequently, had a highly productive session.

On March 29,1995, the following officials of the executive branch of the U.S. Government appeared before the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations to discuss U.S. implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which had entered into force for the United States on September 8, 1992): John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and Conrad K. Harper, the Department’s Legal Adviser; Assistant Attorneys General Deval L. Patrick, Civil Rights Division, and Jo Ann Harris, Criminal Division; and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer. The same officials, together with other members of the U.S. delegation, appeared again on March 31, 1995, to reply to questions raised by the Committee.

In its advisory opinion, OC-24/17 (Advisory Opinion), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) addressed globally debated issues concerning gender identity, same-sex relationships, and the rights of LGBTI persons. As discussed below, the Court reached conclusions more progressive than those of its European counterpart, due to its finding that the principle of individual autonomy is embedded in the foundations of human rights law and permeates individual self-determination, the free development of one's personality, and the protection of different models of the family. In line with an apparent trend in the Court's case law, the Advisory Opinion rejects the idea that domestic societies are sometimes entitled, by virtue of a margin of appreciation, to choose among different possibilities for protecting human rights, provided that certain international legal limits are observed—an idea addressed in the dissenting opinion.

A regime’s pitiless slaughter of civilians, particularly in an urbanized middle-class country close to Europe, drives segments of the public on both sides of the left-right divide to demand that something be done to quell the killing. When, as in the case of Syria, the regime cannot be shamed, has financial and materiel reserves and backup funding and troops from powerful allies, and has no higher ideal than self-preservation—when, in other words, it is immune to diplomatic and economic pressure—demands for responsive action quickly translate into demands for the use of force, whether direct or by proxy. and because in these enlightened times the projection of force across national borders is widely felt to be legally problematic, determining an appropriate reaction to the slaughter becomes a task for lawyers, no less than strategists.

More than thirteen decades after Chile annexed Bolivia's coastal regions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) denied Bolivia's longstanding claim that Chile had undertaken a legal obligation to negotiate granting it sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

Two recent books illustrate current trends of thought as to the conduct of nations within the community of nations. They do not present new attitudes; they represent the long struggle between advancing law and the maintenance of the interest of individual units of society.

On Monday evening, April 18, 1927, his Excellency Octavio Mangabeira, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, formally opened the International Commission of American Jurists for the Codification of International Law, Public and Private, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the Monroe Palace, in the presence of the official representatives of seventeen of the twenty-one American Republics, having before them, as the bases of their labors,the projects of public and private international law drafted by the American Institute of International Law. On Friday afternoon, May 20, 1927, he formally adjourned the International Commission of American Jurists, which had to its credit twelve projects of public international law, and a code of private international law of no less than 439 articles, which the Commission had, within the short space of five weeks, put into shape primarily from the projects of the American Institute of International Law. It is the purpose of the present article to show how this Commission, the first official body which successfully and consciously endeavored to codify the two branches of international law, accomplished the purpose for which it had been created and assembled.