In May 2017, India commenced proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Pakistan, accusing it of “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations” (VCCR). The dispute concerns the treatment of an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, who was detained, tried, and sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan. The Court essentially upheld the claim by its judgment of July 17, 2019.

On September 11, 2019, twelve states parties invoked the Inter-American Treaty on Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), because they considered the crisis in Venezuela to have a destabilizing impact on the peace and security of the hemisphere. Venezuela was one of the twelve, voting in favor; this was because, on April 9, 2019, the Organization of American States (OAS) formally recognized Juan Guaido's representative, Gustavo Tarre, in lieu of Nicolas Maduro's Ambassador. At the OAS General Assembly in June, Tarre's appointment was approved in a much contested and heated session. The OAS has thirty-five member states and approximately one-third of its membership supported the invocation of the TIAR. The TIAR is the OAS's mutual defense pact; it was last invoked following the events of September 11, 2001. Article 5 of the NATO Charter, calling for collective action in the case of an armed attack on one member, is derived from Article 3 of the TIAR. Following invocation of the TIAR, the Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (the OAS equivalent to the UN Security Council, but without veto power) held its 30th meeting in New York City during the UN General Assembly. The result of that meeting was the adoption of the Resolution under consideration here.

On August 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided United States v. Assa Co. The decision is significant for its holding that a civil forfeiture action in rem concerning property of a foreign state or its instrumentality is not an action against the foreign state or instrumentality for purposes of the jurisdictional and immunity provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

On October 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in In re del Valle Ruiz that significantly expands the ability of parties to foreign legal proceedings to obtain discovery from U.S. courts. The Second Circuit reached two key conclusions that work to expand the reach of discovery by American courts: first, that the reach of 28 U.S.C. section 1782 applies to the full limit of constitutional due process, and second, that there is no bar on the ability of U.S. courts to order the production of documents outside of the United States under section 1782.

On March 28, 2019, less than two weeks after the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2462. It stands as a signal of the United Nations' continued recognition of the critical importance of finance in combatting and countering global terrorism. Unfortunately, it may also be an indication that states are not doing what they have been urged to do in previous resolutions. The text of 2462 and its preamble are riddled with language like “Reminding,” “Reaffirming,” “Encouraging,” and “Noting with Concern,” rather than with language and ideas that break new ground.

In a January 31, 2019 decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or Court) held that Russia, the respondent state, should pay Georgia, the applicant state, 10 million euros as just satisfaction for violations committed by Russia against Georgian nationals; these violations had previously been established in the Court's main judgment in 2014 (Georgia v. Russia). The Court also held that Georgia should distribute this amount to approximately fifteen hundred Georgian victims, which had been identified in the Court's main judgment in 2014. In this important decision, the ECtHR continued to build on its recent case law, in holding that just satisfaction, in the form of monetary compensation, was appropriate and available in an interstate dispute.

On April 12, 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) refusing to authorize an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the Decision).

On November 1 and 2, 2018, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (the Committee) adopted views pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol in the cases of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al. In respect of both communications, the Committee considered that the interpretation made by the Finland Supreme Administrative Court (the Court), of who was eligible to be a member of the Sami Parliament's electoral roll, violated Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), read alone and in conjunction with Article 27, and in light of Article 1.

On October 15, 2019, a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in case C-128/18 Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu, a case concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of February 26, 2009. Article 4 of the Charter provides for the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, under Article. Article 4 of the Charter is to have the same meaning and scope as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case involved the issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Dorobantu by a Romanian judicial authority to German authorities, as Mr. Dorobantu resided in Hamburg. Prior to executing the warrant, the German court referred a number of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling concerning material conditions of detention and how to assess whether such conditions comply with EU fundamental rights guarantees. The CJEU ruled effectively that requested judicial authorities must suspend execution of an arrest warrant until they have been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate whether or not the fundamental rights of the person in question are in actual danger of being infringed.