On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its reparations judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) case. This followed from its December 19, 2005 merits judgment, which found that Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated international law vis-à-vis each other and were obliged to make reparations to each other. The ICJ ultimately held that, over five annual instalments of US$65 million from September 1, 2022 until September 1, 2026, Uganda was to pay the DRC a total of US$325 million for damage to persons, damage to property, and damage related to natural resources.

Over the years, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian legal practice has responded to foreign and international economic sanctions reactively. As a rule, Russia has not initiated economic sanctions as an assertive measure against other countries, will apply sanctions authorized by an international organization of which it is a member and for which sanctions it has voted, and retaliates almost reflexively against economic sanctions imposed by others specifically against Russia, seemingly with little regard for the self-imposed consequences of its actions. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation authorizes (Article 1194), as did its predecessor the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, the introduction of retaliatory measures (retorsion) in response to similar measures against Russian citizens and juridical persons in other states.

As the rules against modern slavery and trafficking have grown over the past three decades and become more effectively enforced, awareness has grown that domestic servants of diplomats form a class that is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, which means they are unusually badly protected and often unable to secure justice. First, the immunity of diplomats and other members of diplomatic missions forms an obstacle to civil and criminal proceedings against them; second, if a judgment is obtained through waiver of immunity, it cannot be enforced; and third, even if the diplomat is expelled, this still leaves the servant without an effective remedy.

China's foreign judgment recognition and enforcement regime has been the least developed part of its private international law, as opposed to jurisdiction and choice of law. The regime remained almost immutable over three decades from the 1980s, even though the civil procedure law that established it went through several revisions. Under the present Civil Procedure Law (CPL), the regime consists of rules regarding qualified applicants, legal bases, and refusal grounds for recognition and enforcement. According to these rules, the creditor of an effective foreign judgment or the foreign court rendering it may seek its recognition and enforcement before a Chinese court. The Chinese court shall review the application based on international treaties China has concluded or acceded to, or the principle of reciprocity. If the effective foreign judgment has not proven to contravene the fundamental principles of Chinese laws and the sovereignty, security, and public social interests of the state, it will be recognized and enforced; otherwise, it will not receive recognition and enforcement.

On December 21, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated interim measures in the case Armenia v. Azerbaijan (no. 4). The request for interim measures brought by the Government of Armenia alleged that Azerbaijan was blocking Armenians' access to the Lachin Corridor which, according to a press release from the Court, is used by Armenian residents in Nagoro Karbakh to access vita services, including medical care. In its decision to indicate provisional measures, the Court noted that Azerbaijan was obligated under Article 6 of the Trilateral Statement signed November 9, 2020, to “guarantee the security of persons, vehicles and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.” The Court also reiterated Azerbaijan's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court ordered Azerbaijan to take measures to ensure that seriously ill persons in need of medical treatment were granted safe passage through the Corridor.