On April 21, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a judgment finding the illegality of Colombia's measures and actions in the Nicaraguan exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the case Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea. The dispute primarily concerned the Court's jurisdiction based on the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá) Article XXXI and a coastal state's rights over its maritime zones under customary international law.

On December 1, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its judgment in the Dispute Concerning the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia). There is no basin agreement governing the Silala, and Chile and Bolivia have ratified neither the 1997 Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses nor the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. In the absence of a treaty regime applicable to the waters of the Silala River, the Court had the opportunity in this case to consider the legal framework applicable to international watercourses under customary international law.

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 February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its reparations judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) case. This followed from its December 19, 2005 merits judgment, which found that Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated international law vis-à-vis each other and were obliged to make reparations to each other. The ICJ ultimately held that, over five annual instalments of US$65 million from September 1, 2022 until September 1, 2026, Uganda was to pay the DRC a total of US$325 million for damage to persons, damage to property, and damage related to natural resources.

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.

The resolution “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine: Defending the Principles of the Charter of the United Nations” was adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on October 12, 2022, with 143 UN member states in favor, five against, thirty-five abstentions, and ten not voting. It is another important UNGA resolution on Ukraine, after the UNGA qualified as aggression Russia's invasion of Ukraine since February 24, 2022 in its resolution of 2 March 2022. That resolution had 141 states voting in favor, thus a slight increase in votes supporting Ukraine's rights under international law can be seen in the resolution at issue.

Over the years, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian legal practice has responded to foreign and international economic sanctions reactively. As a rule, Russia has not initiated economic sanctions as an assertive measure against other countries, will apply sanctions authorized by an international organization of which it is a member and for which sanctions it has voted, and retaliates almost reflexively against economic sanctions imposed by others specifically against Russia, seemingly with little regard for the self-imposed consequences of its actions. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation authorizes (Article 1194), as did its predecessor the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, the introduction of retaliatory measures (retorsion) in response to similar measures against Russian citizens and juridical persons in other states.

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 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 September 22, 2022, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) published its views in the communication of Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia, originally submitted in May 2019. Although not the first case before human rights treaty bodies on matters relevant to climate change, it is the first time the Human Rights Committee has found a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in breach of its obligations under the ICCPR for failure to take mitigation and adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change. In doing so, it made a number of comments on both procedural and substantive issues, which may well pave the way for future action.

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was originally conceived as a means of fully harmonizing data protection law across the territory of the European Union. As a regulation, the GDPR has direct and uniform effect in member state law without the need for member states to adopt national implementing laws. However, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) acknowledged in its well-known 2021 Facebook Ireland judgment, the GDPR as finally adopted contains a number of optional provisions that allow member states a margin of discretion to limit or expand its scope.

On June 10, 2022, by consensus, the International Labour Conference (ILC) adopted a resolution amending the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work to encompass “a safe and healthy working environment.” Under this Declaration, adopted in 1998, all 187 member states of the International Labour Organization (ILO) have an obligation, arising from their membership, “to respect, promote and realize … the principles concerning the fundamental rights” that are the subject of ILO Conventions recognized as fundamental. The other four fundamental categories are freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, the effective abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

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 March 24, 2020, Benin notified the African Union Commission that it was withdrawing from the optional aspect of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (Court) that entitled non-governmental organizations and individuals to bring cases directly to the Court. Benin withdrew due to perceived interference by the Court in a domestic commercial transaction and numerous decisions against Benin involving political opposition, with the state noting “serious incongruities.” Benin also indicated its intention to attempt to reform the Court at the next African Union Summit.

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the Framework) was adopted at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on December 19, 2022. Despite the efforts made under the CBD, biodiversity loss has continued at an alarming rate, and the targets set under the Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 were not fully achieved. In 2018, the CBD Parties therefore adopted a decision to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to guide international efforts towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity over the next decade. The Framework, the adoption of which was delayed by two years by the COVID-19 pandemic, succeeds and replaces the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its accompanying Aichi Targets. The Framework includes four overarching goals and twenty-three accompanying targets to be achieved by 2030, together with four long-term goals to achieve the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.

As the rules against modern slavery and trafficking have grown over the past three decades and become more effectively enforced, awareness has grown that domestic servants of diplomats form a class that is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, which means they are unusually badly protected and often unable to secure justice. First, the immunity of diplomats and other members of diplomatic missions forms an obstacle to civil and criminal proceedings against them; second, if a judgment is obtained through waiver of immunity, it cannot be enforced; and third, even if the diplomat is expelled, this still leaves the servant without an effective remedy.

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a Grand Chamber, rendered its decision in the preliminary ruling procedure C-817/19, Ligue des Droits Humains v. Council of Ministers. In its ruling, the CJEU held that the surveillance regime established by the Passenger Name Record Directive 2016/681 (PNR Directive) was compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU/EU Charter). Nevertheless, the CJEU strictly circumscribed the Directive's transposition within EU member states' domestic laws. While restricting permissible interpretations of the PNR Directive's provisions and imposing strict limitations on its scope to ensure its conformity with the EU Charter, for the first time the Court upheld an instrument of indiscriminate surveillance as compatible with EU primary law. This represents a significant development in the CJEU's case law on privacy rights, which is likely to affect the negotiation and development of future PNR agreements with third countries, as well as the development of the ePrivacy Regulation, discussions surrounding the regulation of AI, and negotiations for international instruments aiming to address serious crimes. Further, the ruling confirms the CJEU's increasing convergence with the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) case law on the matter, thus inscribing national security as a legitimate exception to the general prohibition of indiscriminate bulk data collection and retention in Europe.

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.

The European Union's (EU) attempts to deal with the ongoing rule of law crisis in numerous member states resulted in the adoption of the so-called “rule of law conditionality” mechanism. Judicial challenges to the new tool before the Court of Justice resulted in two rulings issued in February 2022 by the full court and livestreamed for the first time in the Court's history. The judgements might be considered the most important “rule of law rulings” in the Court's case-law, since they put the rule of law at the forefront of the European Union's identity.

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.