Georgia v. Russia (II) is only the first judgment since Bankovic in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has examined the question of jurisdiction in an interstate case involving military operations in the context of an international armed conflict (IAC).

In 1976, the U.S. Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to afford foreign sovereigns presumptive immunity from the jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts absent the application of one of the exceptions specifically enumerated in the statute. In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a foreign sovereign's “taking of property from its own nationals” falls within FSIA's so-called expropriation exception for “property taken in violation of international law.”

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL) was passed on June 30, 2020 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). It did not have immediate direct effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). After consulting the Committee for the Basic Law of the HKSAR (BLC) and the Government of the HKSAR (HKSARG), the NPCSC added the NSL to Annex III of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) before the Chief Executive of the HKSAR (Chief Executive) promulgated the NSL for local application. All this happened on June 30, enabling the NSL to enter into force at 11 p.m., just ahead of the twenty-third anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR on July 1, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied a request by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), to review the merits of Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Crystallex, the Third Circuit affirmed a trial court's determination that PDVSA is the “alter ego” of Venezuela itself, thus permitting Crystallex to enforce a $1.4 billion judgment against Venezuela by attaching property held in PDVSA's name. Given the Supreme Court's decision to leave the Third Circuit's opinion undisturbed, Crystallex is a significant decision that may affect parties involved in transnational litigation for years to come—especially those pursuing or defending against U.S. enforcement proceedings involving the property of foreign states.

On January 28, 2021, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a judgment in which it rejected preliminary objections raised by the Maldives in arbitral proceedings instituted by Mauritius, concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary north of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 constitutes a landmark in the development of International Criminal Law (ICL), which gained its first momentum after World War II through the foundation of International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. ICL is, however, not confined to these most prominent courts or their statutes providing for definitions of international crimes under their respective jurisdiction; rather, ad hoc international, or internationalized and hybrid special tribunals and criminal chambers also contribute to the development and shape of ICL and reflect its diverse legal and institutional basis. Perceived as another tribunal of “international character,” on August 18, 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) pronounced its judgment on the merits in the Ayyash case. The long-awaited verdict raises the question of the Tribunal's contribution to the further evolution of ICL.

On June 11, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13928 Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court under the authority vested in him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other federal statutes. Although the Trump Administration had earlier threatened aggressive action against the International Criminal Court (ICC), the issuance of the E.O. followed a ruling by the ICC Appeals Chamber authorizing the Prosecutor to commence an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, which might implicate U.S. persons. The E.O. declared the ICC's “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over U.S. personnel and the personnel of “certain of its allies” to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” within the meaning of IEEPA. It is a sweeping measure, blocking all property within the United States owned by designated natural or legal person (section 1); barring any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to, or for the benefit of, designated persons (section 3), including even the donation of food, clothing, or medicine (section 2). The E.O. also authorized the imposition of certain immigration restrictions, including suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials and their immediate family members (Section 4).

On February 4, 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates). It upheld by eleven votes to six the first preliminary objection raised by the UAE and found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Qatar. The case was referred to the Court under Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and relates to measures taken on June 5, 2017 by the UAE, along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt, to cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and impose a blockade, including expelling all Qatari residents and visitors.

On September 15, 2020, in a ceremony that took place on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain) Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani signed a trilateral document, called the “Abraham Accords Declaration,” a political declaration that called for the promotion of peace and cooperation in the Middle East. As referenced in the declaration, it was titled after the common patriarch Abraham, from whom the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have descended. U.S. President Donald Trump added his signature as a witness to the Abraham Accords Declaration, as well as to two other, bilateral documents also signed in Washington on the same day, which are discussed below.

On February 5, 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its decision on territorial jurisdiction in the “Situation in Palestine.” The result reflects the controversy surrounding the process and the merits: a divided bench, with a Minority decision three times the length of that of the Majority. The outcome marked the culmination of sustained attempts by Palestinians and their supporters over more than two decades to engage the ICC, beginning with contentious negotiations preceding the vote on the Rome Statute at the Rome Conference and including three preliminary examinations, the third of which concluded with this decision. The Rome Statute, adopted by vote on July 17, 1998, included elements that negotiators acknowledged had never appeared before in international law, and were directed at an Israeli target. For this reason, in large part Israel, which had long supported the principle of an international criminal court, chose not to become a state party to the Statute or to participate in the proceedings.

On December 11, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered by majority its judgment on the merits of the litigation between Equatorial Guinea and France concerning the legal status of a building at 42 Avenue Foch, situated in Paris, in the very elegant 16th district, close to the Arc de Triomphe (Place de l'Étoile/Place Charles de Gaulle).

On October 3, 2019, the United States and the United Kingdom signed an innovative international agreement on international assistance in criminal matters. The agreement, which has not yet entered into force, will enable law enforcement authorities in either country to request and obtain electronic communications content data directly from service providers located in the other country. It is intended to obviate the need, with respect to e-evidence, for resort to the slower and more cumbersome mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) in force between the two countries.

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

In October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a Grand Chamber, handed down its preliminary rulings in Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Privacy International) and in the joined cases of La Quadrature du Net v. Premier ministre and Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v. Conseil des ministers (La Quadrature du Net). In Privacy International, the CJEU held that member states are precluded from enacting laws enabling bulk transmission of communications data from providers to the state. In La Quadrature du Net, it laid down requirements for various types of data processing, including bulk and targeted retention and automated analysis, and held for the first time that bulk retention of communications data could be justified on national security grounds. The judgments represent a significant development of the CJEU's jurisprudence on communications data processing and state surveillance, as the European Union (EU) continues to move towards a new digital privacy law.

On December 18, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision on the jurisdiction of the Court in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela). By a 14–2 majority, the Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide certain elements of the application submitted unilaterally by Guyana against Venezuela, while it concluded unanimously that it lacks jurisdiction over other aspects of Guyana's application. Having established jurisdiction over certain elements of Guyana's application, the ICJ will now proceed to hear the merits of the claims.

On July 1, 2020, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2532 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the world and its impact on international peace and security. After determining that “the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,” the Council called upon all parties to armed conflicts to apply an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and to engage in “a durable humanitarian pause … in order to enable the safe, unhindered and sustainable delivery of humanitarian assistance, provisions of related services by impartial humanitarian actors … and medical evacuations.” The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has called for a global ceasefire in connection with an international health emergency.

On June 26, 2015, the Italian Republic (Italy) commenced arbitral proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by serving on the Republic of India (India) a Notification under Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of UNCLOS and Statement of Claim (Notification and Statement of Claim) in respect of the dispute concerning the Enrica Lexie incident. On July 2, 2020, having issued its Award to Italy and India (the Parties), the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) published the operative part or the “dispositive” of the Award at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which acts as registry for the proceedings.

On June 2, 2021, the Intern-American Court of Human Rights was referred a case from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights concerning Fabio Gadea Mantilla, a former candidate in the 2011 Nicaraguan presidential race. According to a press release from the OAS, it was contested that the country possessed the primary responsibility of securing and upholding Gadea Mantilla's right to become an electoral candidate, which it failed to accomplish. This is in reference to his past participation in 2011, where he was listed as a prime candidate for the presidency. In March of 2011, the presidential seat was occupied by Daniel Ortega, and despite the illegality of Ortega seeking re-election, he won by a majority vote of over 62%. This was addressed and argued before the Supreme Electoral Council by both Gadea Mantilla and other competing parties, which was dismissed, and the decision finalized. According to constitutional precedent, the Council has the last word on these matters and appeals are simply not possible. The main issue to be determined was whether executive power was being overextended, impeding on democratic processes as outlined in Article 147 of the Constitution, which limits presidential candidates to two terms. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice failed to see any validity in referencing this, but the IACHR asserted its stance on this practice being a direct contradiction to foundational principles of inter-American democracy.

An important ruling, with international implications regarding the increasingly fraught and unsettled realm of state regulation in the digital sphere, came from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on September 15, 2020. In its ruling in the case of Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke, the CJEU stepped in to make a strong defense of legislation intended to secure so-called “net neutrality”—the principle of internet regulation meant to ensure that internet service providers cannot unduly restrict end-user access to certain internet applications or services based solely on commercial considerations. The ruling continues the CJEU's strict legal interpretations in furtherance of EU regulation and protection of consumer and individual rights in the digital sphere, with a clear eye toward cementing Europe's position in the vanguard of digital regulation and in the hope that such principles will be replicated and upheld elsewhere.