The provisional measures orders by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan v. Armenia (2021), and Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022) are reproduced here to mark the start of the proceedings in these important cases. The Court issued these provisional measures orders in a setting of ongoing tensions and a pending ongoing war, respectively.

On July 13, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution designed to facilitate the enjoyment of the human rights and other basic freedoms of Africans and people of African descent in every region of the world, specifically against excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. The Resolution deplored all forms of racial discrimination against Africans and people of African descent, condemned “the continuing racially discriminatory and violent practices” perpetrated against this group by many law enforcement officials, and urged states “to seize every opportunity” to implement an “anti-racism agenda” that prioritizes “racial equality and justice” for the group, including better use of independent national human rights institutions and preferential programs, among other far-reaching, substantive techniques. Although not yet constituted, the Resolution established an independent committee, comprising individuals with law enforcement and human rights expertise, charged with the responsibility for “advanc[ing] racial justice and equality [with]in the context of law enforcement in all parts of the world” through various means that include visits to countries where violations are taking place.

On April 26, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), without a vote, adopted resolution 76/262 entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council.” Less than two months later, on June 8, 2022, for the first time in history, the UNGA held a debate specifically to address a veto cast by China and Russia in the Security Council (UNSC). This meeting, convened in accordance with resolution 76/262, represents a great step forward for accountability within the UN system and opens a new chapter regarding the balance of power among the principal organs of the organization. The power dynamics within the UNSC, the demands for a more efficient United Nations, the fact that a meaningful UNSC reform is not in sight, and the current polarization resulting from Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine set the context in which the resolution was adopted.

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.

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 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.

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.

McCallum v. Italy involved the extradition of a U.S. national accused of murdering her husband and the burning of his corpse in Michigan. According to a press release from the Court, At the time she filed her case, she was being detained in Rome, but at the time of the judgment, she was in detention in the U.S. In denying her request to stay her extradition, the Italian authorities referred to the U.S. appeals process, the possibility of a pardon or a commutation of her sentence by the Michigan governor as reasons counseling in favor of extradition. They also felt that there were no reasons to believe that she would be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment there. Several months later, the U.S. authorities sent a diplomatic note to Italy indicating that McCallum would be tried for the lesser offense of second degree murder, which would carry with it the possibility of parole. A new extradition order was issued by Italy, but the Court ordered that it be stayed pending these proceedings. In ultimately holding that the extradition would not violate Article 3, the Court pointed out the importance of Michigan's diplomatic note, indicating that a lesser charge would be imposed. Citing prior case law, the Court noted that “Diplomatic Notes carry a presumption of good faith and that, in extradition cases, it was appropriate that that presumption be applied to a requesting State which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with Contracting States” (¶ 51, citing Harkins & Edwards v. UK, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07).