On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion on Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. By votes of 11–4, the Court found that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) was unlawful and needed to be ended as rapidly as possible. By a 14–1 majority, the Court also found that Israel was obligated to cease all new settlement activities, evacuate existing settlers from the OPT, and make reparation. The ICJ further opined by votes of 12–3 that all states and international organizations were obliged not to recognize as legal the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT, that all states must refrain from giving aid or assistance to the maintenance of that situation, and that the United Nations “should consider the precise modalities” required to bring Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT to an end.

On December 24, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted unanimously in support of resolution 79/23, adopting the “United Nations Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious Crimes” (UNCC).1 This Christmas Eve consensus marked the end of a multilateral journey that formally began in 2019, and signaled the beginning of a new chapter in the much longer history of international cooperation on cybercrime.

On April 9, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) seated in Strasbourg released its judgment in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland case, which marks the first occasion where the Court found a violation of several rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) in a climate change litigation case.

On February 28, 2024, the International Criminal Court's Trial Chamber IX issued the largest reparations order in the Court's history against Dominic Ongwen, a former commander in the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), for crimes Ongwen committed in Uganda between 2002 and 2005. Ongwen had been convicted of 62 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murders, crimes of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and abducting children and forcing them to fight in Uganda's civil war. After the Appeals Chamber affirmed Ongwen's convictions, Trial Chamber IX awarded €52,429,000 in reparations to 49,772 victims of his crimes. Ongwen has appealed. His appeal remains pending as of this writing.

On June 25, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the Court) delivered a unanimous 346-page judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). The Court found Russia responsible for the administrative practice of violations of eleven substantive articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 18) as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, following Russia's illegal annexation of the peninsula in 2014. These violations, among others, concerned enforced disappearances, ill-treatment, restrictions on Ukrainian media and language education, persecution of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar opponents of the Russian occupation and expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises in the peninsula. The judgment represents a major victory for Ukraine, underscoring that Russia's human rights violations in Crimea form a systematic pattern, particularly highlighting the campaign of repression against the opponents of Russian rule. At the same time, the judgment is significant as it features one of the most consequential considerations of international humanitarian law (IHL) for the interpretation and application of the Convention, thereby positioning the latter in a wider framework of public international law.

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a number of countries, including the United States, froze Russian sovereign assets (RSA) within their respective jurisdictions. It is estimated that some US$300 billion of RSA are immobilized worldwide. A fraction of those frozen assets, approximately US$4–$5 billion, are thought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed H.R. 815 into law, which included the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act (REPO Act). The REPO Act broadly provides for the “repurposing” of RSA within the jurisdiction of the United States to facilitate assistance to Ukraine in response to Russia's unlawful invasion.

On December 14, 2023, the Appeals Panel of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC) delivered its judgment in its first war crimes case against Salih Mustafa, a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), charged with leading a guerrilla unit known as the “BIA” unit Zllash, in the Gollak region of Kosovo. Mustafa was charged by the Specialist Prosecutor's Office (SPO) with war crimes, including arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture, and murder, in connection with the mistreatment of prisoners at a makeshift detention facility in Zllash in April 1999. The Appeals Judgment affirmed Mustafa's convictions for arbitrary detention, torture, and murder as war crimes, but granted his appeal, in part, against his sentence. The Appeals Panel lowered Mustafa's single sentence from twenty-six to twenty-two years of imprisonment, concluding that this reflected the totality of Mustafa's criminal conduct in this case. The sentence was subject to further review and determination by the Appeals Panel pursuant to the Supreme Court Panel's subsequent decision on protection of legality, wherein that Panel granted Grounds 1 and 3 of the Mustafa's Protection of Legality Request. The Supreme Court Panel annulled the Appeals Judgment with respect to Mustafa's sentence, and it remanded the Appeals Judgment to the Appeals Panel for a new determination thereon. Accordingly, the Appeals Chambers Panel made a new determination of the sentence, by imposing a single sentence of fifteen years of imprisonment on Mustafa. These Trial and Appeals judgments mark a milestone for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC), as they represent the first ruling by this tribunal in a war crimes case.

While the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques offers great promise to society, there is growing public concern about AI's impact on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.1 As a consequence, many international organizations have developed legal frameworks for AI governance. These began with the Universal Guidelines for AI (2018), the OECD AI Principles (2019), later adopted by the G20 nations, the UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, and most notably, the EU Artificial Act, a comprehensive framework for the regulation of AI.

On March 5, 2024, the “Best Practices for the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” were introduced in Washington, DC.1 Prepared by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and diplomats from various countries, they are presented as legally non-binding but morally important standards to clarify and improve the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.2 As such, they reinforce earlier calls on states to identify artifacts lost due to Nazi persecution and support “just and fair” solutions for title issues. Nevertheless, they go beyond these earlier instruments by proposing further action and widening key elements of the material norm.

On November 8, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a preliminary ruling in response to a request from the Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The request pertained to the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The CJEU held that Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention must be interpreted as precluding a situation where an environmental association is unable to challenge an administrative decision before a national court.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are permeating all domains of our lives. Aside from the many opportunities they raise, their deployment can also hamper individual and societal interests. To counter these risks, regulators across the globe are therefore adopting normative initiatives to govern the technology. While these mostly consist of the promulgation of ethics guidelines and non-binding recommendations, the European Union (EU) opted for binding rules instead. In Spring 2024, it adopted a landmark regulation titled the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Act entered into force on August 1, 2024, and most of its provisions become applicable after two years. Since it systematically and punctiliously regulates the use of AI across sectors rather than focusing on a specific application domain, the AI Act is heralded as the first legal instrument of its kind. Its trendsetter status in the global AI regulatory landscape, coupled with its extraterritorial scope, means the Act is likely to shape the course of AI's uptake in Europe and beyond.

On June 13, 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgment in Case C-123/22 European Commission v. Hungary, a follow-up action to Case C-808/18 European Commission v Hungary condemning Hungary's non-compliance with EU legislation on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals and on common procedures regarding international protection. Hungary had responded to the earlier judgment in what the Commission deemed a wholly inadequate manner. The Commission requested that a lump sum and penalty payment be imposed on Hungary by the ECJ. The Court now responded by ordering a record lump sum payment and record-equalling penalty payment, forcefully underlining judicial power in policing rule of law compliance.

Genocide is the denial of the right of existence of a human group committed by intentional killing, destruction, or extermination of the group. Prohibited under international law as a jus cogens norm, it cannot be derogated from by international agreement or national legislation and imposes obligations erga omnes. Genocide is also an international crime, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war. On January 26, 2024, the ICJ delivered a provisional measures order (First PMO) requiring Israel to comply with its obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in relation to its military operations in the Gaza Strip. The Court found a plausible risk of Israel committing and/or inciting acts of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and demanded, inter alia, that it prevent all such acts, in particular killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Doe v. Cisco Systems, Inc. shows that there may yet be life in the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The court held that Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong could bring claims of aiding and abetting human rights violations against Cisco Systems and its CEO for designing and building a surveillance system for the People's Republic of China. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, more than a year after the original decision, with a long dissent joined by six judges. This introductory note discusses the panel opinion and the opinions on the petition for rehearing. The story may not be over yet, however, because Cisco has petitioned for Supreme Court review.

On June 26, 2024, Trial Chamber X found Al Hassan guilty of some of the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity brought against him for acts committed between April 2, 2012, and January 29, 2013, in Timbuktu. According to a press release issued by the Court, the Court found that Al Hassan became a senior member of the Islamic Police and was given the task of, among other things, organizing police work. The Islamic Police played a “pivotal” role in the system put in place by armed groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)—a system put in place to commit the crimes at issue. The Court also determined that Al Hassan contributed to the police system put in place by Ansar Dine and AQIM through actions including writing and signing police reports, taking part in the transfer of accused persons to the Islamic Court, and implementing the Court's judgments and sentences. He was committed of the direct commission of crimes, contributing to crimes with others, and aiding and abetting the crimes of others in relation to crimes against humanity and torture, and the war crimes of torture and outrages upon personal dignity. He was convicted of contributing to crimes of Ansar Dine and AQIM in relation to the war crimes of mutilation, cruel treatment and passing sentences without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable, and the crimes against humanity of persecution and other inhumane acts.

On January 20, 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italy violated the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention). The ruling was based on Italy's prolonged failure to address widespread illegal waste dumping by organized criminal groups in the Terra dei Fuochi (Land of Pyres) region near Naples.

On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to prevent and effectively investigate violence erupted during the May 2, 2014 clashes in Odesa.

On May 1, 2025, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Government of Ontario in a youth-driven climate case in which seven youth plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge to the Government’s lack of action with respect to climate change. As reported by JURIST, the plainfiffs argued that Ontario’s use of Section 16 of the 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act to modify the 2016 Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act resulted in a watering down of the requirments in the Climate Change Act and effectively subjects youth and indigenous communities to dangerous and arbitrary levels of CO2 emissions. They seek an order declaring that their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms have been violated. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded in October 2024 that government climate change targets must comply with the Charter and affirmed that the government’s actions are putting people at risk. The refusal by the Supreme Court to take the appeal confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal means the case will return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ application.