On May 18, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied a request by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), to review the merits of Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Crystallex, the Third Circuit affirmed a trial court's determination that PDVSA is the “alter ego” of Venezuela itself, thus permitting Crystallex to enforce a $1.4 billion judgment against Venezuela by attaching property held in PDVSA's name. Given the Supreme Court's decision to leave the Third Circuit's opinion undisturbed, Crystallex is a significant decision that may affect parties involved in transnational litigation for years to come—especially those pursuing or defending against U.S. enforcement proceedings involving the property of foreign states.

On May 30, 2012, the Appeals Chamber (Chamber) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) voted unanimously to dismiss the appeal of the Prosecution against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber not to confirm the charges against the alleged Congolese warlord Callixte Mbarushimana. The Prosecution had alleged Mbarushimana was criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute (Statute) for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by members of the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) in the Kivu provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Prosecution had appealed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on three separate issues, all of which were rejected.

In the past decade, Latin American States have begun to voice strong criticisms of the existing system for the settlement of disputes between foreign private investors and States through international arbitration based on investment treaties. Since the end of the nineties, said system has undergone an extraordinary development due to the direct right of action granted to foreign investors by investment treaties. Indeed, the great majority of the thousands of investment treaties existing today not only grant substantive protection to investments made by investors of one State party in the territory of the other State party to the treaty, but also contain investor-State dispute settlement provisions allowing investors to initiate arbitration proceedings against host States for an alleged breach of the treaty by the State. The practice of arbitration based on investment treaties has, however, generated many difficulties with respect to both the arbitral tribunals’ application of the substantive protections provided for in the treaties and to the functioning of the arbitration proceedings. In response to those difficulties, Latin American States are seeking to set up regional legal and political cooperation initiatives to create alternatives to the existing system. The Declaration of the 1st Ministerial Meeting of the Latin American States Affected by Transnational Interests (Declaration) adopted in Guayaquil, Ecuador on April 22, 2013 is one recent example of such initiatives.

On January 27, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC or Committee) published two separate decisions in response to communications brought against Malta and Italy. Both decisions concerned the same incident, which occurred on October 11, 2013, where over 200 migrants drowned in a shipwreck in the Mediterranean. The first complaint brought against Malta was dismissed by the Committee on procedural grounds. In the second case, A.S., D.I., O.I. and G.D. v. Italy, the HRC found that Italy had failed to protect the right to life of the migrants under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This introductory note discusses the significance of the Committee's findings in this decision and its ramifications with respect to the protection of human rights at sea.