On December 7, 2016, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made an order indicating provisional measures in Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), a case concerning the trial of Equatorial Guinea's second vice-president in charge of defense and security, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, for alleged money laundering in France. This ongoing case highlights the expansive jurisdictional reach of anti-money laundering laws but so far offers no guidance as to whether it may be limited by official immunities or the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

The United States stands alone in its refusal to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty ratified by every other member state of the United Nations, which currently has 196 states parties. Article 37(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.”

On October 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered an important judgment on diplomatic immunity. It was the first time the Supreme Court had considered the implications of human trafficking for the scope of diplomatic immunity. As Lord Sumption noted, “[s]ince there is some evidence that human trafficking under cover of diplomatic status is a recurrent problem, this is a question of some general importance.”

Those who have been following international headlines for the past year can observe the increased prevalence of discussions on nuclear weapons, including between the United States and North Korea. In the margins of the discussions, the law and policy discussions around nuclear non-proliferation become very relevant. After all, the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are very clear. “Studies have shown that the detonation of nuclear weapons would cause widespread death, injury and damage, especially if it occurred in or near a populated area.” There would be extensive casualties from severe burns and blunt force trauma that would occur in the moments after the detonation, as a result of blast effects and the release of thermal radiation. As such, most communities would not necessarily have the capacity to enact appropriate response mechanisms. “[A]ssessments undertaken by the ICRC have highlighted that there is a lack of capacity in most countries and at the international level to adequately respond to a nuclear detonation, and to provide assistance that would benefit a substantial portion of survivors in the aftermath.” Amid these considerations, the first-ever nuclear ban treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty), was negotiated in the halls of the UN headquarters in New York. Before analyzing the Treaty itself, a word on how it came about and the legal framework that preceded it.

On December 5, 2017, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers (Committee) issued an interim resolution concerning the European Court of Human Rights case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan. In this resolution, the Committee, for the first time ever, launched infringement proceedings against a member state of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention).