In December 2013, civil conflict erupted between the Government of the Republic of South Sudan and opposition forces due to political infighting among the country’s political and military elites. On March 3, 2015, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2206 pursuant to its powers under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Resolution 2206 provides for targeted sanctions against specific individuals and entities deemed “responsible for or complicit in, or [as] having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security or stability of South Sudan.” The stated purpose of the targeted sanctions, which consist of a travel ban and asset freeze for designated individuals and entities, is to “support the search for an inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan.”

On June 27, 2014, at the 23rd Ordinary Session of the Summit of the African Union held in Malobo, Equatorial Guinea, member states of the Africa Union adopted the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Monetary Fund (Fund).

Plan for the Fund is not new but dates back to the 1963 Charter of the Organization of African Unity (the predecessor to the Africa Union) as well as to the 1991 Abuja Treaty—the agreement that established the African Economic Community and put in place a framework for continental integration. The Constitutive Act of the African Union (Constitutive Act) adopted in 2000 also envisaged the establishment of the Fund. Annexed to the Protocol is the Statute of the African Monetary Fund (Statute). As envisioned in the Abuja Treaty, the Fund, together with continental institutions such as the Africa Investment Bank and the African Central Bank that are still in the pipeline, are critical to efforts to create a continental economic and monetary union in Africa.

On September 26, 2014, the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Government of Australia concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Relating to the Settlement of Refugees in Cambodia. The agreement provides for refugees on the Pacific Island of Nauru to be voluntarily relocated to Cambodia. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and several international human rights organizations have lambasted the agreement, maintaining that Australia would be contravening its humanitarian and refugee obligations.

At its sixty-sixth session in 2014, the International Law Commission completed its final report on the obligation to extradite or prosecute and submitted it to the United Nations General Assembly for consideration at its sixty-ninth session.1 The report concluded the Commission’s work on a topic the General Assembly had long considered important in states’ efforts to cooperate in the prevention of impunity for crimes of international concern.2 The Commission addressed the implementation of the obligation; gaps in the existing conventional regime; the priority between the obligation to prosecute and the obligation to extradite, and the scope of the obligation to prosecute; the relationship between the obligation with erga omnes obligations or jus cogens norms; the customary international law status of the obligation; and other matters of relevance from the general framework created in 2009 for the Commission’s consideration of the topic.

On November 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down a judgment on an appeal from the South African Police Service and Prosecution Authority in National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre (the Decision). The Court decided that the South African Police Service is empowered to initiate investigations into alleged crimes against humanity committed in the territory of another state, irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators are present in South Africa, and ordered the authorities to initiate such investigations.

The United Nations (UN) Security Council, for the first time in its history, declared a disease outbreak as “a threat to international peace and security” on September 18, 2014. An outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, the most harmful outbreak of this disease ever recorded, gave it cause to do so. The Ebola outbreak also marked the first time that the UN Secretary-General deployed, under his authority, a “United Nations emergency health mission”—neither a peacekeeping operation, nor a “political mission.” Finally, the Ebola outbreak motivated the World Health Organization (WHO) to make use of its authority to declare a “public health emergency of international concern” under the International Health Regulations (IHR) for the third time since their entry into force and induced the WHO Director-General to convene, for the third time in WHO’s history, a special session of the WHO Executive Board to reform WHO’s role in disease outbreak response. The materials presented below form essential background to these important developments in international health law and in the institutional practice of the United Nations system.