An important ruling, with international implications regarding the increasingly fraught and unsettled realm of state regulation in the digital sphere, came from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on September 15, 2020. In its ruling in the case of Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke, the CJEU stepped in to make a strong defense of legislation intended to secure so-called “net neutrality”—the principle of internet regulation meant to ensure that internet service providers cannot unduly restrict end-user access to certain internet applications or services based solely on commercial considerations. The ruling continues the CJEU's strict legal interpretations in furtherance of EU regulation and protection of consumer and individual rights in the digital sphere, with a clear eye toward cementing Europe's position in the vanguard of digital regulation and in the hope that such principles will be replicated and upheld elsewhere.

Introduction

Trial Chamber I of the International Tribunal (the “ Trial Chamber”) is seized of a case which concerns events surrounding the military encirclement of the city of Sarajevo in 1992 by Bosnian Serb forces.

The Prosecution alleges that “The siege of Sarajevo, as it came to be popularly known, was an episode of such notoriety in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia that one must go back to World War II to find a parallel in European history. Not since then had a professional army conducted a campaign of unrelenting violence against the inhabitants of a European city so as to reduce them to a state of medieval deprivation in which they were in constant fear of death. In the period covered in this Indictment, there was nowhere safe for a Sarajevan, not at home, at school, in a hospital, from deliberate attack.”

When does an agreement to arbitrate a commercial dispute constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity? This question has assumed increasing importance over the past decades in direct proportion to the extent that sovereign states and their agencies, entities, and instrumentalities have agreed to arbitrate their disputes with investors and under commercial contracts. On August 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered this issue in the context of a petition to confirm an arbitral award, when it ruled that by becoming a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), Argentina had waived its sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

On November 24, 2013, the Islamic Republic of Iran, together with the E3/EU–comprised of France, Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK)–as well as the People’s Republic of China (China), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States of America (US) agreed to the Joint Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program (Joint Plan of Action). The Joint Plan of Action aims at ensuring the Islamic Republic of Iran’s exclusive peaceful nuclear program through mutually-agreed steps between the so-called E3/EU+3 and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Though much has been said about the Joint Plan of Action since its adoption, not enough attention has been paid to its historical context; such neglect risks the Joint Plan of Action being, at best, viewed in isolation. This note bridges that gap by providing an overview of the events that led the Islamic Republic of Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and Germany (P5+1) to agree on the Joint Plan of Action.