In 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its fourth judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia. The case was first initiated by Nicaragua under the Bogotá Pact in 2001. The fourth judgment affirmed Colombia’s territorial sovereignty over a group of islands in the western Caribbean Sea and delimited a boundary between the two states’ zones of maritime jurisdiction. Even after eleven years of complicated proceedings, however, the parties’ conflicting claims are not yet completely resolved. The ICJ explicitly declined to address Nicaragua’s potential entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coastal baselines, including the portion of Nicaragua’s ‘‘outer’’ continental shelf that allegedly overlaps with Colombia’s maritime entitlements. For the foreseeable future, this aspect of the controversy will likely remain unresolved. One week after the ICJ rendered its fourth judgment, Colombia withdrew from the Bogotá Pact and thereby terminated its consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

On November 16, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reversed by majority the findings of a unanimous Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (Gotovina). In so doing, it acquitted two Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, on all counts of the indictment, including persecution and deportation as crimes against humanity, and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war.

In October and November of 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) issued two key decisions affirming the legality of the court and the use of trials in absentia of the accused. Highly disputed within Lebanon and throughout the international legal community, both decisions are crucial milestones in the developing history of the STL, and mark critical developments in the evolution of the international justice system and international criminal law.

On October 19, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled that policies pursued by de facto authorities in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova aimed at suppressing Moldovan-language education violated the right to education of the affected children and their parents. The Court held Russia responsible for these violations by virtue of the continued vital support Russia provides to the de facto authorities. Meanwhile, the Court found Moldova to have complied with residual human rights obligations it retained, despite lacking effective control over Transdniestria. This important judgment develops the jurisprudence of the Court in relation to human rights violations arising from conduct of de facto authorities. However, it does not fully clarify the standards the Court applies in attributing their conduct to third states.

On September 12, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled in Nada v. Switzerland that the implementation by Switzerland of the United Nations Security Council Al-Qaida Sanctions Regime violated the right to private and family life under Article 8, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights clarified its position on prisoner disenfranchisement under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Grand Chamber upheld, by sixteen votes to one, the challenged Italian legislation as within the margin of appreciation granted to member states in determining the conditions under which the Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 right to vote is exercised. Following its precedent in Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), the Grand Chamber ruled that the Italian law pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime and enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law, and that the relevant measure was proportionate because it did not affect a group of people generally, automatically, and indiscriminately. Notably, the Grand Chamber differentiated Scopppola (No. 3) from Hirst (No. 2), stressing that the U.K. legislation challenged in the latter deprived all prisoners, regardless of the length of their sentences or the nature of their crimes, of their right to vote. Unlike Hirst (No. 2), the Grand Chamber noted, the Italian legislation adapted voting restrictions to the particular circumstances of each case.

Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides that a consular officer shall, if requested by a national of the sending state arrested in the receiving state, be informed of the arrest by the authorities of the receiving state ‘‘without delay [and] shall have a right to visit [and assist the arrested] national.’’ It also provides that ‘‘said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights’’ to communicate with the consular officer.

The Food Assistance Convention (Convention), signed by seven countries and the European Union in April 2012, went into effect on January 1, 2013. The Convention replaces and builds on the 1999 Food Aid Convention (FAC 1999). The use of ‘‘assistance’’ instead of ‘‘aid’’ in the title signals a change in approach from fixed commodity donations to offering a series of options for assisting communities address their particular food needs and goals. The objectives of the Convention are broad, to ‘‘save lives, reduce hunger, improve food security, and improve the nutritional status’’ of the most vulnerable populations. These objectives are in accord with international humanitarian law, which is referred to in the Preamble. The foundation of the Convention is the annual commitment of food, cash, vouchers, equipment, seeds and other assistance by each Party. The flexibility in developing the assistance for each population permits the donor to consider the specific local needs, capabilities and goals, e.g., to avoid interfering with or displacing local production. ‘‘Vulnerable populations’’ and the ‘‘most vulnerable populations’’ receive special attention throughout the Convention. The text refers to improved coordination of multilateral efforts, authorizes increased involvement of other organizations and stakeholders, and expressly gives priority to obligations under the World Trade Organization.

The Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) adopted by consensus, at its fifth session held in Seoul from November 12 to 17, 2012, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. This instrument is the first protocol to be adopted within the framework of the FCTC and is open to participation by parties to the FCTC.

Known as the Kampala Convention, the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa is the first regional treaty to comprehensively address the issue of internal displacement. Having entered into force with its fifteenth ratification on December 6, 2012, the Convention tackles a major humanitarian, human rights, and development issue for the African continent, as there are more than 9.7 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The treaty builds on the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, integrating international human rights and humanitarian law norms as they relate to internal displacement, and incorporating principles from African regional standards such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Great Lakes Protocol. While rooted in these standards, the Convention also reflects recent developments and the evolution of best practice regarding IDP protection. In so doing, the Convention advances the normative standard on internal displacement in a number of important areas, including in terms of the prohibition on arbitrary displacement; the responsibilities of international and regional organizations; internal displacement linked to the effects of climate change; and remedies for those affected by displacement.