On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion on Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. By votes of 11–4, the Court found that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) was unlawful and needed to be ended as rapidly as possible. By a 14–1 majority, the Court also found that Israel was obligated to cease all new settlement activities, evacuate existing settlers from the OPT, and make reparation. The ICJ further opined by votes of 12–3 that all states and international organizations were obliged not to recognize as legal the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT, that all states must refrain from giving aid or assistance to the maintenance of that situation, and that the United Nations “should consider the precise modalities” required to bring Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT to an end.

On June 25, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the Court) delivered a unanimous 346-page judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). The Court found Russia responsible for the administrative practice of violations of eleven substantive articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 18) as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, following Russia's illegal annexation of the peninsula in 2014. These violations, among others, concerned enforced disappearances, ill-treatment, restrictions on Ukrainian media and language education, persecution of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar opponents of the Russian occupation and expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises in the peninsula. The judgment represents a major victory for Ukraine, underscoring that Russia's human rights violations in Crimea form a systematic pattern, particularly highlighting the campaign of repression against the opponents of Russian rule. At the same time, the judgment is significant as it features one of the most consequential considerations of international humanitarian law (IHL) for the interpretation and application of the Convention, thereby positioning the latter in a wider framework of public international law.

On April 9, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) seated in Strasbourg released its judgment in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland case, which marks the first occasion where the Court found a violation of several rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) in a climate change litigation case.

On June 13, 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgment in Case C-123/22 European Commission v. Hungary, a follow-up action to Case C-808/18 European Commission v Hungary condemning Hungary's non-compliance with EU legislation on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals and on common procedures regarding international protection. Hungary had responded to the earlier judgment in what the Commission deemed a wholly inadequate manner. The Commission requested that a lump sum and penalty payment be imposed on Hungary by the ECJ. The Court now responded by ordering a record lump sum payment and record-equalling penalty payment, forcefully underlining judicial power in policing rule of law compliance.

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a number of countries, including the United States, froze Russian sovereign assets (RSA) within their respective jurisdictions. It is estimated that some US$300 billion of RSA are immobilized worldwide. A fraction of those frozen assets, approximately US$4–$5 billion, are thought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed H.R. 815 into law, which included the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act (REPO Act). The REPO Act broadly provides for the “repurposing” of RSA within the jurisdiction of the United States to facilitate assistance to Ukraine in response to Russia's unlawful invasion.

On November 8, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a preliminary ruling in response to a request from the Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The request pertained to the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The CJEU held that Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention must be interpreted as precluding a situation where an environmental association is unable to challenge an administrative decision before a national court.