On December 19, 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) rendered its “Considerations on Appeals Against Closing Orders” in Case 004/2 Involving Ao An. The 266-page ruling exemplified, and brought to a head, the longstanding conflict within the ECCC between the national and international co-prosecutors and between the national and international judges on the parameters of personal jurisdiction and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the ECCC's constitutional documents. The fate of the ECCC now hangs in the balance.

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

An Appellate Jurisdiction, which addresses municipal law cases on appeal from countries which accept this jurisdiction. To date, four Caribbean countries—Barbados, Guyana, Belize and Dominica—have accepted the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. The applicable law for each case under the appellate jurisdiction is the national law of the state from which the appeal emanates. The CCJ in its Appellate Jurisdiction is intended to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal for Caribbean countries which were formerly British colonies.

On February 13, 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) announced its decision in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain. According to a press release from the Court, the case concerned two individuals (one from Mali and the other from Côte d'Ivoire) who were immediately returned to Morocco from Spain after unlawfully entering the autonomous Spanish city of Melilla on the North African coast. The individuals argued that their return to Morocco violated ECHR Articles 4 of Protocol 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion) and Article 13 (right to an affective remedy). The ECtHR disagreed, basing its decision on the fact that the two applicants unlawfully entered Melilla. The Court stated that because the two individuals had chosen not to make use of lawful channels for entry, their immediate return to Morocco without individual assessment of their cases for asylum "was thus a consequence of their own conduct" (para. 231). Because the Court found no violation of article 4, it could not make a finding with respect to article 13.