During the winters of 1897 and 1898, from the window of his Parisian hotel, Camille Pisarro painted one of his first urban scenes, Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain (the Painting). The Painting marks a significant deviation from Pissarro's prior works, which primarily consisted of au plein air country landscapes. In addition to the Painting's art historical significance, it has now become one of Pissarro's most infamous paintings. Currently sitting in the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza (TBC) in Madrid, this artwork has been the subject of a decades-long court battle over its ownership. After the Nazis assumed control of Germany, the original owner forcibly surrendered the Painting in order to obtain exit visas for her family. Decades later, the heirs of the original owners attempted to recover the Painting under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). After this decades-long litigation, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a procedural issue: what choice-of-law rule a court should apply in an FSIA case raising state claims.

On June 17, 2022, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference issued a “Draft Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement,” addressing the requirements established in Articles 31 and 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Decision provides several clarifications regarding the process by which member countries may “authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent” without the consent of the right holder for the purposes of “production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines.” The decision provides guidance to countries considering the use of legal mechanisms, particularly compulsory licenses, to transfer vaccine technology with the goal of increasing the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine available to underserved populations, especially in lower-income countries.

China's foreign judgment recognition and enforcement regime has been the least developed part of its private international law, as opposed to jurisdiction and choice of law. The regime remained almost immutable over three decades from the 1980s, even though the civil procedure law that established it went through several revisions. Under the present Civil Procedure Law (CPL), the regime consists of rules regarding qualified applicants, legal bases, and refusal grounds for recognition and enforcement. According to these rules, the creditor of an effective foreign judgment or the foreign court rendering it may seek its recognition and enforcement before a Chinese court. The Chinese court shall review the application based on international treaties China has concluded or acceded to, or the principle of reciprocity. If the effective foreign judgment has not proven to contravene the fundamental principles of Chinese laws and the sovereignty, security, and public social interests of the state, it will be recognized and enforced; otherwise, it will not receive recognition and enforcement.

The Artemis Accords (the Accords) reproduced below were signed on September 13, 2020, by the administrator of the U.S. space agency, NASA, and seven other space agencies. The intervening years since then have underscored their importance: they may give a boost to the development of the legal regime of outer space exploration and use as defined by the existing treaty framework, while supporting the U.S. interpretation of the non-appropriation principle, or they may upset the existing legal regime of Outer Space, leading to its fragmentation by abandoning multilateralism. This introductory note highlights those aspects of the Accords that may affect the edifice of the international law relating to Outer Space, even if the Accords themselves are not legally binding, as explained briefly below.

In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, states have deployed an array of tools aimed at isolating and weakening Russia, and supporting Ukraine, while avoiding direct involvement in the hostilities. These measures have included sanctions, export and import restrictions, visa bans, exclusion of Russian aircraft from states' airspace, seizure of oligarchs' property, and the provision of weapons and aid to Ukraine. Many states have also worked to terminate or suspend Russia's membership or participation in international organizations. In light of Russia's aggression and widely publicized reports of human rights atrocities, its early exclusions from two key human rights institutions—the Council of Europe (CoE) and the UN Human Rights Council (HRC)—were seen as important symbolic reaffirmations of the rules-based international order.

On September 15, 2022, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (hereinafter ACERWC or Committee) issued its decision in the matter of Legal and Human Rights Centre and Centre for Reproductive Rights v. Tanzania. This case is related to the practice of forced pregnancy testing in schools in Tanzania and the later expulsion of girls who are found to be pregnant and/or married. The Communication was presented by the Legal and Human Rights Centre and the Centre for Reproductive Rights, on behalf of Tanzanian girls. This decision represents an important contribution to the line of international cases advancing the rights of girls under 18 years old, in particular in the areas of sexual and reproductive health and education, exemplified by increasing jurisprudence issued by regional human rights bodies.

On January 5, 2023, the U.S. Justice for Victims of War Crimes (JVWC) Act was signed into law. The legislation closed long-recognized gaps in U.S. federal jurisdiction for holding accused war criminals accountable. Prior to the JVWC, the federal war crimes statute provided jurisdiction over war crime offenses committed anywhere, but only if the victim or offender was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a U.S. national. The baseline federal statute of limitations also applied, meaning the United States could only bring charges within five years of the crime occurring.

Under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a), the U.S. Congress permits federal district courts to order testimony or the production of documents “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” For the past two decades, U.S. Courts of Appeals have been split over whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 applies to private international commercial arbitrations. On June 13, 2022, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it does not. To the extent that §1782(a) may apply to investor-state arbitrations, the Court held that the scope of the statute is limited to adjudicative bodies imbued with governmental or intergovernmental authority. Access to U.S. discovery procedures has thereby been narrowed significantly in the context of international arbitration.

On April 7, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a preliminary ruling in United Airlines, clarifying the territorial scope and upholding the applicability of the Air Passenger Regulation in relation to connecting flights departing from an EU airport, even when the second leg of the flight takes place outside of the European Union. A decade after one of the most high-profile cases on the extraterritorial reach of EU law concerning the inclusion of global aviation emissions in the EU emissions trading system (ETS) (Air Transport Association of Americas), United Airlines brought to light its lasting significance and its extension to a different aspect of air transport concerning passenger rights.

On November 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment on whether the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to introduce a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill (the Bill) to hold a referendum in Scotland asking the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, or whether this relates to reserved matters to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act of 1998 (the Act). The Court unanimously concluded that the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and cannot be lawfully legislated by the Scottish Parliament. The case raises issues about the extent of legislative competence of a UK devolved nation, and whether it can lawfully exercise the right to self-determination under international law when a constitutional framework does not recognize legislative competence to hold an independence referendum.

On December 20, 2021, the U.K. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) delivered a unanimous decision in the highly publicized Maduro Board v. Guaidó Board litigation. The decision partially overturned that of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and is an important decision on both issues raised in the case: the recognition of governments and the “Act of State” doctrine. The first of those is examined in more detail in this note.

On March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The court alleges that he is responsible for war crimes committed since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, including the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. The Russian commissioner for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, is also wanted by the ICC.

On December 21, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights indicated interim measures in the case Armenia v. Azerbaijan (no. 4). The request for interim measures brought by the Government of Armenia alleged that Azerbaijan was blocking Armenians' access to the Lachin Corridor which, according to a press release from the Court, is used by Armenian residents in Nagoro Karbakh to access vita services, including medical care. In its decision to indicate provisional measures, the Court noted that Azerbaijan was obligated under Article 6 of the Trilateral Statement signed November 9, 2020, to “guarantee the security of persons, vehicles and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.” The Court also reiterated Azerbaijan's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, in particular Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court ordered Azerbaijan to take measures to ensure that seriously ill persons in need of medical treatment were granted safe passage through the Corridor.

Climate change is an urgent global challenge, and human rights-based climate justice litigation is increasingly used in efforts to force executives and legislators to take action to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change. These effects are already felt around the world—for example, in the form of droughts, rising sea levels, and more frequent extreme weather events. Among the most important pollutants that accelerate climate change is CO2. As a highly industrialised nation, Germany contributes about 2 percent of global CO2 emissions, although it only is home to around 1 percent of the Earth's population. In recent years, German companies have faced litigation over their contributions to human-made climate change. The decision by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) that is presented here is to be seen in the context of the current trend of human rights-based climate justice litigation in domestic and international courts. It can be considered the German counterpart to the landmark Urgenda case that was decided by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019.

On July 6, 2023, the CJEU issued this judgment concerning the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention), to which the EU is a party.

On September 5, 2023, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Panel (CPTPP Panel or the Panel) issued its first decision. The case was initiated in May 2022 by New Zealand which claimed that Canada's system for the administration of its tariff rate quotas on dairy projects is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the Partnership Agreement. After consultations with Canada failed, New Zealand requested that a panel under Article 28.7 of the Agreement be established to examine the issue. There was a dispute about the role to be played by a prior decision of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Panel on similar issues. New Zealand felt that the USMCA Panel decision was “highly pertinent” because of the similarities between relevant provisions in the two agreements, but Canada disagreed, arguing that not only is the USMCA decision irrelevant but that its interpretation of the relevant provisions was incorrect. Australia, which intervened as a third party participant, agreed with New Zealand, pointing to the need to ensure consistent decisions concerning what it deemed were identical provisions in the two agreements. Japan, another third party participant, suggested that the panel ensure that its decision was made in reliance on Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (concerning rules of interpretation).