On March 29, 2018, the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (hereinafter Guyana) filed in the Registry of the Court an application instituting proceedings against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter Venezuela) with respect to a dispute concerning “the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, of 3 October 1899” (hereinafter the 1899 Award or the Award).

Following a debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on January 26, 2023 (7th sitting), under the urgent procedure, a text was adopted by 100 votes in favour, none against, and one abstention: a Resolution on the “Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine.”

On July 6, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in C-663/21 AA on a preliminary reference from the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court. The CJEU examined the international legal principle of non-refoulement and how it applies in EU law, particularly to expulsion decisions following the withdrawal of refugee status. It held that EU law “preclude[es] the adoption of a return decision in respect of a third-country national where it is established that removal of that third-country national to the intended country of destination is, by reason of the principle of non-refoulement, precluded for an indefinite period.”

This case addressed irregularities in the investigation of the death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido on October 19, 2001. The petition alleged that her death occurred in the context of harassment and attacks against human rights defenders in Mexico. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) found that the state was responsible for violations of rights related to judicial protection and judicial guarantees under Articles 8(1) and 25 and personal integrity under Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

Congress recently enacted significant reforms to the laws governing the reporting and publication of international agreements in the United States. These reforms were adopted in December 2022 and took effect in September 2023, and the State Department issued regulations implementing them in early October 2023.

Yegiazaryan v. Smagin represents a landmark case within the Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) jurisdiction, revolving around a contractual dispute between John Yegiazaryan and Alex Smagin. The legal intricacies unfolded when Smagin sought to enforce a multimillion-dollar arbitration award against Yegiazaryan in California under the New York Convention. The district court's asset freeze faced complications as Yegiazaryan, residing in California, received an unrelated arbitration award and attempted to evade the freeze. In response, Smagin invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging a coordinated effort to obstruct the collection of the arbitration judgment. The case stands as a pivotal legal milestone marked by complexities and jurisdictional challenges.

On September 1, 2023, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress promulgated the Foreign State Immunity Law of the People's Republic of China (FSIL), which entered into force on January 1, 2024. The law abandons China's prior adherence to the absolute theory of state immunity and instead adopts the restrictive theory followed by most other countries. Under the restrictive theory, foreign states are immune from suits based on their governmental acts (acta jure imperii) but are subject to suits based on their non-governmental acts (acta jure gestionis).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a unanimous decision on November 23, 2023, in a case brought by former Polish President Lech Walesa against the Polish Government. The Court concluded that a Polish Appeals Court, the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (CERPA), had violated Walesa's right to an independent and impartial trial, breached “the principle of legal certainty,” and violated his right to respect for private and family life. The Court found that the CERPA “was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal established by law’” and was often used by the state to “further its own political opinions and motives,” as the Prosecutor General of Poland and the Executive branch of government held considerable influence and authority over the judicial system. Additionally, the 2017 law that created the CERPA gave to the General Prosecutor “the unlimited power to contest virtually any final judicial decision” and extended the time limits for filing appeals, which enabled the Prosecutor to act retroactively and undermine the “requirement of foreseeability.”