On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its judgment in Scalin. The case involved descendants of Jewish people in France who were sent to concentration camps on trains operated by the defendant railroad company. The descendants sued the railroad for personal property stolen by the railroad workers an given to the Nazis, arguing that the expropriation exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for cases applied and that therefore, the case could be heard by U.S. courts. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff descendants should pursue their complaint within the French administrative claims framework set up specifically to compensate victims of the Nazi regime. The district court relied on precedent permitting U.S. courts to abstain in favor of compensation systems based in the state where the harm occurred. In the meantime, the DC District Court disagreed with that precedent, holding that abstention is never proper and the Seventh Circuit suspended the appeal while the Supreme Court considered the Philipp case. After that judgment, the plaintiffs in this case asked the Court to remand the case to the district court so that the district court could determine whether any of the plaintiffs' predecessors in interest were not French citizens at the time the property was taken. The Court opined that a remand of this nature would omit consideration of the essential question in this case: “what is the plaintiffs' claim in the first place?” The Court noted that this “is a triple-foreign suit: plaintiffs allege that nationals of a country other than the United States were injured by a foreign entity (SNCF) in a foreign nation (France).” Although one of the plaintiffs is a U.S. citizen, the case nonetheless involves a foreign claim.

On October 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway, sitting as a Grand Chamber, had to decide in three interconnected cases (HR-2021-1975-S) whether the construction of certain wind power plants, which will form part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe, in a particular rural area interfered with (Sami) reindeer herders’ rights to enjoy their own culture according to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The case, which had been initiated long before Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and concomitant spiking energy prices—which might have added an extra dimension to the underlying, countervailing issues—pits efforts to increasingly produce “green,” renewable energy and the minority rights of a particular cultural group against each other. Taking the peculiar requirements of reindeer husbandry, the need for safe winter pastures, and the specific geographical conditions of the locus delicti into account, the Court concluded that the windfarms would have a substantial negative effect on the reindeer herders’ possibility to enjoy their own culture, which, in the absence of satisfactory remedy measures, threatened the very existence of reindeer husbandry on Fosen, and therefore found a violation of Article 27, ICCPR.

Since Latvia filed in July 2022, 21 additional states have filed declarations of intervention in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). At the time of writing, declarations have been filed by Lithuania, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, Sweden, Romania, France, Poland, Italy, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Estonia, Spain, Australia, Portugal, Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, and Croatia.

On July 6, 2021, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the above case concerning a trans woman's Article 8 right to family life and Article 14 right to non-discrimination on gender identity grounds. The Applicant (divorced) in the case was prevented from seeing her children by their biological mother on the grounds that her gender transition had caused irreparable harm to the mental health and morals of the children. During the dispute, an “expert report” had confirmed the Applicant's diagnosis of “transsexualism,” noting the applicant's “principled inability to preserve a male appearance” and her “insufficient consideration […] of the age-related specificities of the children's development,” and that report was relied upon by a district court in Moscow to prevent the Applicant from seeing her children. After several other unsuccessful appeals, the Applicant brought the case to the ECtHR, arguing under Article 8 that the restriction of her parental rights had not been necessary in a democratic society and was therefore a violation of her right to respect for family life. In reviewing the domestic courts' decisions, the Court criticized their reliance on the expert report, in particular its failure to actually explain how the Applicant's gender transition represented a risk to her children. According to the Court, this was even more concerning given that the report itself acknowledged that there is no real scientific evidence on this issue. Moreover, available international material “is unanimous that domestic courts deciding on the restriction of parental rights and contact should aim to (1) keep children together with their parents and, in the event of their separation, maintain direct contact between them on a regular basis, (2) take the child's best interests as a primary consideration, and (3) assess the entire family situation through close and individualised scrutiny.” The Court concluded that the domestic courts had failed to consider the Applicant's specific family situation and that a complete deprivation of parental rights should be reserved for only the most extreme circumstances, which were not present in this case. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 8.