On September 22, 2022, the Supreme Court Chamber (SCC) of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) pronounced its judgment against Khieu Samphan, a key figure in the Khmer Rouge regime that ruled the country in the late 1970s. The appellate SCC upheld the Trial Chamber's conviction of Khieu Samphan for war crimes and genocide, as well as all but two convictions against him for crimes against humanity. The SCC also found him responsible for additional crimes and affirmed his life sentence. On December 23, 2022, the court published the full written judgment, bringing to a close Case 002/02, the third and final trial at the ECCC.

On December 15, 2022, the International Criminal Court's Appeals Chamber unanimously confirmed Dominic Ongwen's convictions for crimes against humanity and war crimes and, by majority vote, confirmed his sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment.

On August 1, 2022, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) published its judgment on the joined cases of Sea Watch eV against the Italian Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Transporti, the Capitaneria (Harbor Master's Office) di Porto di Palermo, and the Capitaneria di Porto di Porto Empedocle. The Court of Justice's judgment clarifies EU law regarding the additional inspection and detention of a private humanitarian assistance ship. A port state must make a reasonable and justified decision to conduct additional inspections or to detain a ship. The port state must base its decision on serious indications of dangerous operation. However, interpreting the EU law alongside the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the Court of Justice held that a port state cannot justify such additional inspections solely based on an excess of passengers beyond a ship's classification or certifications when that ship is rendering assistance to rescued individuals.

On December 8, 2022, in a case relating to a de-referencing request to an internet search engine operator on the basis of inaccurate information, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment (the Judgment) on the interpretation of the right to erasure (right to be forgotten) under Article 17 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), and the rights of access and objection under Articles 12 and 14 of the EU Directive 95/46/EC (the Directive), in light of fundamental rights to privacy, protection of personal data, and freedom of expression and information under Articles 7, 8, and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The case establishes that the burden of proof is on the person requesting de-referencing to show manifest inaccuracy of information, but this does not require them to seek a judicial remedy against the website publisher before requesting de-referencing. Although the search engine operator is obliged to carry out checks to confirm the merits of the request, it has no obligation to investigate the facts and probe further with the website publisher. However, it must de-reference where relevant and sufficient evidence is submitted to show manifest inaccuracy, and it must display a warning where it is made aware of judicial proceedings.

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.

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 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).