On October 12, 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or the Court) delivered its judgment in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The Court established a single maritime boundary between the two states, delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf, including the continental shelf beyond 200 miles.

On May 25, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a final judgment in Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom (BBW). The decision is the first Grand Chamber ruling on bulk interception in the post-Snowden era and charts the path forward for the use of tools and techniques of mass surveillance for national security purposes by Council of Europe member states. The decision was issued alongside a parallel ruling in Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden (CFR). While CFR is “very much the companion case to BBW,” an analysis of it is outside the scope of this note. Suffice to say that, combined, both cases reaffirm the Court's position that the operation of foreign bulk interception regimes does not ipso facto violate the Convention, as such operations may be necessary in the investigation of national security threats and serious crime, including in the context of global terrorism, cyber-attacks, counter-espionage, election interferences, drug trafficking, and child pornography. In a rather complex and lengthy judgment, the Court elaborated on a procedural framework that incorporates “end-to-end safeguards” and is aimed at preventing power from being abused in the operation of these tools.

One of the many implications of the measures taken to contain the spread of the COVID-19 crisis was the potential limitation of citizens to participate in their governments, namely through free, fair, and transparent elections. Recognizing the risks this would pose to political stability and governmental legitimacy in Africa, the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) submitted a Request for an Advisory Opinion to the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court) on the right of citizens to participate in the government of their country in the context of an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court's Opinion was that the decision to conduct or postpone elections was a matter of domestic law, but that any such decision had to comply with regional and international standards on restriction and suspension of rights during emergencies.

On February 14, 2022, an ad hoc division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued its decision in the case involving Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva. Valieva was suspended from participation in the 2022 Winter Olympic Games after the detection of a banned substance in her blood. The suspension was lifted by a decision issued by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee on February 9, 2022, allowing her to continue in the Olympics. The applicants (the International Olympic Committee, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the International Skating Union) challenged the lifting of the suspension. The CAS denied the applicants' challenge and allowed Valieva to participate in the Games. The CAS held that because Valieva is under the age of 16, she is considered a “protected person” under the World Anti-Doping Code and as such, should be sanctioned to a lesser degree than someone of age. In addition, because the positive sample was taken before the Winter Olympics, and she had not tested positive during the Games themselves, preventing her from participating in the Winter Games would cause “irreparable harm.” In addition, the 44-day delay in reporting her adverse test results should not be held against her to her detriment, particularly in consideration of the fact that the substance detected in the sample was “extremely low” and its performance-enhancing effects have not been proven. The World Anti-Doping Agency expressed its disappointment in the decision, noting that the World Anti-Doping Code does not permit “specific exceptions to be made in relation to mandatory provisional suspensions for ‘protected persons.’”