On April 10, 2019, the International Tribunal of the Sea (ITLOS) gave judgment in the M/V “Norstar” (Panama v. Italy) case. This was the first time an international tribunal had ruled directly on the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters. Specifically, ITLOS found (by fifteen votes to seven) that by arresting and detaining the Panamanian-flagged M/V “Norstar”, Italy had violated Article 87(1) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In doing so, the Tribunal arguably relied on a quite expansive understanding of the exclusive flag state jurisdiction principle as set out in Article 92 UNCLOS—a point that was argued forcefully in a seven-judge dissenting opinion. Below, I will briefly outline the background to the case before setting out the central aspects of the judgment and considering further this point of contention surrounding the permissibility of nonflag prescriptive measures in international waters.

On May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a provisional measures order to the Russian Federation to release two Ukrainian warships, a naval auxiliary ship, and their servicemen. This case adds to the jurisprudence concerning the Tribunal's institutional authority to issue a provisional measures order under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

On November 13, 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) decided on an appeal coming from Guyana in the case McEwan and Others v. Attorney General of Guyana. With this decision, the CCJ declared unconstitutional Section 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act of the Laws of Guyana, which made it a crime for a man to dress in female attire or for a woman to dress in male attire, in a public place, for an improper purpose. In the case, the CCJ also limited the extent to which the colonial “savings clause” present in the constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries limits the Court's judicial review powers.

In its Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed two questions posed in a request from the UN General Assembly. First, had Mauritius's decolonization been completed when it gained independence in 1968, after the excision of the Chagos Archipelago? Second, what were the legal consequences flowing from the United Kingdom's continued administration of the Archipelago? It was thought that the Court might shy away from giving an Opinion in this case as, arguably, it concerned a bilateral sovereignty dispute that the United Kingdom had not agreed to have resolved by judicial decision. However, as it turned out, the Court delivered surprisingly robust responses to the questions posed. The Opinion—and the numerous Separate Opinions that accompanied it—offer a thorough re-evaluation of the customary international law (CIL) concerning the right to self-determination in cases of decolonization.

On June 6, 2018, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered a judgment on preliminary objections in the case of Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France). France had made three preliminary objections: two related to the Court's jurisdiction on the basis of, respectively, United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention) and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Protection (VCDR) concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol), and the third challenged admissibility for abuse of process and abuse of rights. The Court accepted the first objection regarding jurisdiction on the basis of the Palermo Convention and rejected the other two. This judgment is an important contribution to the development of international law, both regarding the particular instruments at issue and broader questions of law of treaties and international dispute settlement.

On April 5, 2019, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel (Panel) issued its decision in the dispute Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit. This decision is notable because it is the first instance in which a WTO panel has been called on to interpret the national security provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), Article XXI.

On October 5, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or Commission) issued its long-awaited decision in the case of José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others concerning the United States. The case is related to the U.S. military intervention in Panama on December 20, 1989, which resulted in the ouster of General Manuel Noriega Moreno, the country's ruler at the time. This U.S. military operation—better known as “Operation Just Cause”—has been the subject of extensive commentary historically and wide reflection on the number of casualties, effects, legality, and scope.

On June 21, 2019, the International Law Organization (ILO) adopted the groundbreaking Convention No. 190 concerning the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work (C190) and the accompanying Recommendation on the same topic (R206). ILO conventions are legally binding instruments, once ratified by states, while recommendations provide advice and guidance. The result of two years of negotiations by ILO members—governments, workers’ representatives, and employers’ organizations—is an international treaty setting out standards that are aimed at ending violence and harassment in the world of work. In its “Women, Business and the Law 2018” study, the World Bank reports that there is a lack of legal protection against harassment at work in 70 percent of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa, half of the economies in East Asia and the Pacific, and one-third of those in Latin America and the Caribbean, affecting an estimated 500 million working-age women.

On May 30, 2019, the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) entered into force for the twenty-four countries that had deposited their instruments of ratification. When the remaining thirty-one member states of the African Union ratify it, the AfCFTA will cover a market of 1.2 billion people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of $2.5 trillion. That would make it the world's largest trade agreement since the World Trade Organization (WTO).

On October 3, 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous order indicating limited provisional measures against the United States. Iran initiated the case, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. United States), after the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and revoke related sanctions relief for Iran. While the ICJ found that it had prima facie jurisdiction to hear the case—contrary to the U.S. position—the provisional measures it granted fell significantly short of the relief Iran sought. The Court also hinted that it might accept a significant element of the U.S. jurisdictional objection at the merits stage of the case.

President Guido Raimondi, the president of the European Court of Human Rights (European Court), in his address on January 25, 2019, at the opening of the Court's judicial year, singled out the case of Molla Sali v. Greece, concerning the application of Sharia law by the Greek courts, as one of the leading judgments of 2018. The judgment, he noted, gave rise to erroneous interpretations, with some commentators suggesting that the Court wanted to pave the way for the application of Sharia law in Europe, when in his view, the judgment leads to precisely the opposite conclusion.

The case of Anudo v. Tanzania is the first decided by the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights that considers the right to a nationality. The judgment complements existing jurisprudence from the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Court ruled that Tanzania had arbitrarily deprived the applicant of his nationality and then arbitrarily expelled him from the country.

On May 6, 2019, the Appeals Chamber (AC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its judgment in Jordan's appeal of the December 11, 2017 decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) in Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir. The first and second grounds of appeal concerned whether Jordan had complied with its duty to cooperate with the request of the Court to arrest and surrender Al-Bashir. The third ground of appeal concerned whether the PTC abused its discretion in referring Jordan's noncompliance to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Prior to the judgment, ICC PTCs had created divergent jurisprudence regarding the immunity of incumbent heads of state before international courts.

The “Final Agreement for the Settlement of the Differences as Described in the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Parties,” most commonly known as the Prespa Agreement, is the final settlement of an intricate dispute between Greece and (now officially) North Macedonia over the former Yugoslav Republic's name, which has troubled the relations between the two states for almost three decades. Following a carefully choreographed process, the Prespa Agreement (Agreement) entered into force on February 12, 2019. This Note provides a brief overview of the background of the dispute and the main provisions of the Agreement.

On November 15, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in Navalnyy v. Russia. The applicant in the case argued that the Russian authorities had targeted him for arrest and administrative sanctions because of his political activism. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber confirmed its recent change in approach to Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the normalization of the provision's scope and burden of proof. However, it displayed continued uncertainty about how to deal with measures based on a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

On June 5, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Coman. In this important ruling, the Court made it clear that under EU law, the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen can move and reside with the latter in the territory of another EU member state, just as the opposite-sex spouse of an EU citizen can. Although the case is very important in that it was the first time the Court has recognized that same-sex marriages must be treated in exactly the same way as opposite-sex marriages for a specific legal purpose (family reunification rights of EU citizens who exercise EU free movement rights), it creates a number of new questions and highlights a number of gaps that persist even following its delivery.

On September 6, 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) issued its “Decision on the ‘Prosecution's Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction Under Article 19(3) of the Statute.’” The decision is notable both for the procedural posture—the Prosecution submitted its request prior to opening a preliminary examination—and the majority's conclusion that the Court may exercise territorial jurisdiction over alleged deportation from Myanmar, a nonstate party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute or Statute), to a state party, Bangladesh.

In E.S. v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a criminal conviction for making disparaging comments about the Prophet Muhammad, intimating in particular that he was a pedophile, did not violate the speaker's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V. that the arbitration agreement contained in the 1991 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) had an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and, thus, was incompatible with EU law. This important decision has ignited a debate on the compatibility of other arbitration agreements in both intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) with EU law.

In the spring of 2018, the White House and executive agencies issued a series of orders aimed at more aggressive enforcement against irregular entry of migrants at the southwest border. In analyzing the legal validity of the new U.S. immigration policy decisions, the Inter-American System questioned and strongly condemned the U.S. policy and practice of separating migrant families. On June 29, 2018, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a resolution that rejected any migration policy that resulted in the separation of families. Specifically, it urged the U.S. government to implement measures to avoid the separation of families, to seek unification of children and parents already separated, and to promote the identification of migrants and refugee seekers in accordance with international law. After the issuance of the resolution, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted Precautionary Measure No. 731–18, Regarding Migrant Children Affected by the “Zero Tolerance” Policy Regarding the United States of America (the children's measure), and Precautionary Measure No. 505–18, Concerning Vilma Aracely López Juc de Coc and Others Regarding the United States of America (the parents’ measure), both of which recognized that the rights to family life and personal integrity were at risk.