In May 2017, India commenced proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Pakistan, accusing it of “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations” (VCCR). The dispute concerns the treatment of an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, who was detained, tried, and sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan. The Court essentially upheld the claim by its judgment of July 17, 2019.

On November 8, 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a highly anticipated judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation with respect to the lack of the Court's jurisdiction over the claims brought by Ukraine under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT). The Court overwhelmingly rejected all of Russia's preliminary objections under both Conventions and confirmed the admissibility of Ukraine's claims under the CERD. Therefore, Ukraine's case will be heard on the merits in its entirety.

On December 19, 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) rendered its “Considerations on Appeals Against Closing Orders” in Case 004/2 Involving Ao An. The 266-page ruling exemplified, and brought to a head, the longstanding conflict within the ECCC between the national and international co-prosecutors and between the national and international judges on the parameters of personal jurisdiction and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the ECCC's constitutional documents. The fate of the ECCC now hangs in the balance.

Immigration is a hotly debated issue in U.S. politics. Since his election, President Donald Trump has worked hard to implement his “immigration reform” agenda. Consistent with the aphorism that the “Supreme Court follows the election results,” the High Court seems to follow suit, with a resultant spike in the number of immigration cases on its docket.

In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held (by majority, 7–2) that Canadian common law does not contain an all-encompassing doctrine of non-justiciability based on foreign acts of state; and (by a narrower majority, 5–4) that alleged breaches of customary international law (CIL) arguably provide a novel cause of action in tort. The court held that claims against a Canadian mining corporation related to alleged violations at a mine in Eritrea could proceed to trial.

Domestic courts frequently apply foreign law. For example, the forum's choice-of-law rules may require a court to apply foreign law, or a party may expressly base a claim or defense on foreign law. Private international law (or “conflict of laws”) provides principles governing many aspects of the way courts should identify and interpret foreign law.

On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands published its judgment in The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda. The judgment is largely a discussion of questions of Dutch law, but contains several conclusions that are relevant from an international law perspective. In particular, the Court held that on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Netherlands has a positive obligation to take measures for the prevention of climate change and that it was required to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25 percent by the end of 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

On June 11, 2019, the United Nations (UN) Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2474 on missing persons in armed conflict. The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has agreed on a thematic text dedicated to this issue, lending its collective voice to call for more effective implementation of existing obligations towards missing persons—both civilian and military—and their families under international law.

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. The decision is significant for its holding that nothing in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention or the New York Convention) or the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA) prohibits courts from deciding that non-signatories may be bound by or enforce international arbitration agreements based on contract, agency, equity, or related principles.

On September 11, 2019, twelve states parties invoked the Inter-American Treaty on Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), because they considered the crisis in Venezuela to have a destabilizing impact on the peace and security of the hemisphere. Venezuela was one of the twelve, voting in favor; this was because, on April 9, 2019, the Organization of American States (OAS) formally recognized Juan Guaido's representative, Gustavo Tarre, in lieu of Nicolas Maduro's Ambassador. At the OAS General Assembly in June, Tarre's appointment was approved in a much contested and heated session. The OAS has thirty-five member states and approximately one-third of its membership supported the invocation of the TIAR. The TIAR is the OAS's mutual defense pact; it was last invoked following the events of September 11, 2001. Article 5 of the NATO Charter, calling for collective action in the case of an armed attack on one member, is derived from Article 3 of the TIAR. Following invocation of the TIAR, the Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (the OAS equivalent to the UN Security Council, but without veto power) held its 30th meeting in New York City during the UN General Assembly. The result of that meeting was the adoption of the Resolution under consideration here.

On November 15, 2019, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2498, which extended the mandate of the previously established Panel of Experts of Somalia by an additional year; the Resolution also expanded the scope of the Panel's inquiry by specifically tasking the Panel to investigate Al-Shabaab's revenue sources and illegal taxation schemes.

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.

On June 11, 2018, the State of Qatar (Qatar) instituted legal proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD Convention). On the same day, Qatar also applied for provisional measures of protection.

On August 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided United States v. Assa Co. The decision is significant for its holding that a civil forfeiture action in rem concerning property of a foreign state or its instrumentality is not an action against the foreign state or instrumentality for purposes of the jurisdictional and immunity provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

On December 12, 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Committee) issued its decision on the question of jurisdiction in the inter-state communication submitted by the State of Palestine against Israel. It is among the three first inter-state communications ever before human rights treaty bodies and therefore sets numerous precedents on matters of procedure and in this case, on the question of jurisdiction and the unique nature of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the Convention)—the first of a series of treaties codifying and expanding the scope of human rights law.

On March 28, 2019, the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice (the EACJ or Court) issued a judgment in Media Council of Tanzania and Others v. Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 2 of 2017. The Court held that several provisions of United Republic of Tanzania's Media Services Act 2016 (the Act) violated the freedom of expression at the heart of the fundamental and operational principles enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty Establishing the East African Community (the EAC Treaty).

During the fall of 2019, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter the ECJ or the Court) delivered judgments in two cases addressing the responsibility of internet platform companies for the personal information they control. In Google LLC v. Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the ECJ considered the geographic scope of its notable recent jurisprudence on the obligations of search engines to implement the “right to be forgotten” set forth in European Union (EU) data protection law. In Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited, the Court examined whether Facebook was obliged under EU law to remove information available on the social network that previously had been found under Austrian law to defame an Austrian politician.

On April 22, 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) issued its first decision on one of the Guantanamo detainees, Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian Muslim who was held at Guantanamo for almost 12 years until he was deported to Algeria in 2013, in violation, inter alia, of the principle of non-refoulement. The case was brought on Mr. Ameziane's behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and the decision is very comprehensive and carefully written, as is to be expected of a decision totaling 70 pages. Although the United States became a party to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, it never accepted the first Optional Protocol, which gives individuals the right to bring complaints against the United States before the U.N. Human Rights Committee; consequently, the only international body to which an individual can bring a complaint against the United States for a violation of international human rights law is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a principal organ of the Organization of American States (OAS).