On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

On December 9, 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 76/120, “Strengthening and Promoting the International Treaty Framework,” by consensus. The resolution had been forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration after having been adopted by the General Assembly's Sixth (Legal) Committee on November 18, 2021 by consensus, in line with its traditional approach to decision-making. The negotiations of the resolution were coordinated (chaired) by Brazil and Singapore.

On October 12, 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or the Court) delivered its judgment in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The Court established a single maritime boundary between the two states, delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf, including the continental shelf beyond 200 miles.

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.

In 1959, the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS) took place in Santiago, Chile. At that meeting, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created by a political resolution rather than by a treaty, as in Europe. Closely related to the question of promoting human rights was the issue of promoting democracy. Article 3(d) of the OAS Charter proclaims that, “[T]he solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought through it require the political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of representative democracy,” yet the Charter made no attempt to define democracy. In order to fill this gap, the 1959 Declaration of Santiago, also adopted at this meeting, attempted to identify “some of the principles and attributes of the democratic system in this hemisphere” and the one that interests us here is: “Perpetuation in power, or the exercise of power without a fixed term and with the manifest intent of perpetuation, is incompatible with the effective exercise of democracy.”

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, a human rights case brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that U.S. companies aided and abetted child slavery in Ivory Coast. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the claims were impermissibly extraterritorial because nearly all the conduct occurred abroad. The Court left open the possibility that the implied cause of action under the ATS applies to U.S. corporations.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) adopted General Recommendation No. 36 on Preventing and Combating Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement Officials at its 102nd session, which took place from November to December 2020.

On August 2, 2021, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 75/314, establishing a Permanent Forum of People of African Descent to serve as “a consultative mechanism” to advise the UN Human Rights Council on barriers to, and means of achieving, the “full and effective realization and enjoyment” by Afro-descended persons “of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The Permanent Forum constitutes one outcome of the International Decade for People of African Descent declared by the UN General Assembly to commence on January 1, 2015 and conclude on December 31, 2024. It joins a host of institutional initiatives undertaken in the UN human rights system to elaborate a comprehensive framework for combating “the scourges of racism” and realizing the “full political, economic and social inclusion of people of African descent in the societies in which they live.”

On October 31, 2021, the leaders of the Government of Antigua and Barbuda and the Government of Tuvalu signed the “Agreement for the Establishment of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law” (the Agreement). As noted in the title itself, the Agreement creates a Commission of “small island states” tasked with promoting international law principles that hold states responsible for failing to protect the marine environment by contributing to climate change. Among the responsibilities outlined in the Agreement, the Commission would have the power to seek advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, or the Tribunal) as part of its efforts to pursue its mandate.

On January 13, 2022, the secretariat of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), an institution established by the UN Security Council in 1991 to process and pay claims resulting from Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait from August 2, 1990, to March 2, 1991, issued a press release stating that, with a payment that day of over US$629 million to Kuwait, all claimants awarded compensation by the UNCC had received full payment.

The significance of Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2311.01E, The Law of War Program (DODD 2311.01E), last updated in 2020, is not simply rhetorical. Born in 1974 in immediate reaction to the well-publicized atrocities committed by U.S. service members in Vietnam (such as at My Lai and Song Thang), the original directive represented the most tangible and highest-level expression of the U.S. executive branch's desire that its members comply with the laws and customs of war. Beyond important symbolism, the original regulation created a true law of war program in more than name only by establishing an interrelated set of measures focused on training, reporting, and investigating with designated offices and positions of responsibility—measures expressly crafted to ensure law of war adherence. DODD 2311.01E maintains and improves the original 1974 program's compliance architecture, and in doing so operationalizes, more than any other DOD or military initiative, the U.S. national commitment that its military should live by the law of war's precepts.

In February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in favor of Germany in the case Hanan v. Germany, concerning a 2009 NATO airstrike in Kunduz (Afghanistan) resulting in the deaths of many civilians.

On May 25, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a final judgment in Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom (BBW). The decision is the first Grand Chamber ruling on bulk interception in the post-Snowden era and charts the path forward for the use of tools and techniques of mass surveillance for national security purposes by Council of Europe member states. The decision was issued alongside a parallel ruling in Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden (CFR). While CFR is “very much the companion case to BBW,” an analysis of it is outside the scope of this note. Suffice to say that, combined, both cases reaffirm the Court's position that the operation of foreign bulk interception regimes does not ipso facto violate the Convention, as such operations may be necessary in the investigation of national security threats and serious crime, including in the context of global terrorism, cyber-attacks, counter-espionage, election interferences, drug trafficking, and child pornography. In a rather complex and lengthy judgment, the Court elaborated on a procedural framework that incorporates “end-to-end safeguards” and is aimed at preventing power from being abused in the operation of these tools.

On June 3, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), closely following the Advocate General's Opinion, delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in case C-650/18 Hungary v. European Parliament by dismissing Hungary's action. The ruling confirms that the European Parliament (EP) acted within the procedural boundaries of its powers when initiating, by a two-thirds majority vote of its members, proceedings against Hungary for the situation in the country regarding the rule of law, democracy, and other values on which the European Union (EU) is founded. The ruling comes after the Hungarian government decided to challenge the validity of the resolution of the European Parliament of September 12, 2018, which triggered the proceedings foreseen in the event of a clear risk of serious breaches of the foundational values of the EU, including the rule of law, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

On June 8, 2021, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism) Appeals Chamber delivered its appeals judgment in Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. The judgment affirmed the 2017 trial judgment of Trial Chamber I of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which convicted Mladić, the Bosnian Serb commander, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, as well as affirming his sentence of life imprisonment. This constituted Mladić's final appeal, opening the door for his assignment to a prison somewhere in Europe.