On March 24, 2023, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (the Committee or CED) delivered its unanimous “Views adopted under art. 31 of the [International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances],” concerning communication no. 4/2021 on Mexico. The decision relates to the disappearance of Yonathan Isaac Mendoza Berrospe on December 11, 2013, in the city of Veracruz, Mexico. The decision determined that he was a victim of enforced disappearance and that the state failed to guarantee the rights to an effective search, a prompt and effective criminal investigation, and reparations, including the right to know the truth. The Committee considered that his mother was also a victim of the violation of her rights.

The international struggle against impunity for perpetrators of atrocities, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, has been a key interest of the international community since the end of World War II. Many achievements have been accomplished with respect to international collaboration on the “substantive issues” of international criminal law (ICL), such as defining and criminalizing the core crimes of international law, yet collaboration on the procedural and practical aspects of ICL, known as mutual legal assistance (MLA) has been neglected.

On January 17, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgments in case C-632/20, P Spain v. Commission (Kosovo), ruling that notwithstanding the European Union's non-recognition of Kosovo as a state, Kosovo may participate in an EU agency, namely the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). The judgment is significant for several reasons: (1) for the European Union's growing engagement with non-recognized territorial entities since it clarifies the meaning of the concept of “third country” and confirms that such entities may participate in EU agencies; (2) for the European Union's engagement with Kosovo—particularly in the light of Kosovo's 2022 bid for EU membership; and (3) more broadly, in the context of the burgeoning debate regarding the CJEU's approach to international law.

On June 28, 2023, China took a significant step forward in its legislative domain with the enactment of the Foreign Relations Law (FRL). This pivotal legislation entered into effect on July 1, 2023, and serves as a comprehensive framework designed to guide and govern China's international interactions across various sectors. The FRL marks a crucial development in the way China manages its external affairs, aiming to assert itself robustly on the global stage. It endeavors to streamline and clarify the guiding principles of China's foreign engagements, ensuring these are in alignment with its national interests and resonate with its global obligations.

There have many developments since the publication in International Legal Materials of the initial United Kingdom–Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2022, not the least being the unanimous judgment of the UK Supreme Court published below. In addition, the present government has secured the passage of several new laws, including the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, intended to both buttress its policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing of their claims and meet the objections of the Court. It has also “translated” the MoU into a binding treaty, since ratified by both parties, and Rwanda has enacted new asylum laws, as it had agreed.

This is the latest judgment in a case filed in 2020 by the state of Missouri against several named defendants and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for allegedly allowing COVID-19 to spread, engaging in a coverup of the virus, and hoarding PPE, such as high-quality masks, which caused the virus to spread further. In July 2022, the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the complaint, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied to all the defendants in the case, including the CCP and that neither the commercial activity exception or the noncommercial torts exception applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, barring one difference. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the FSIA applied to all the defendants and that neither exception raised applied. However, it reversed the lower court's dismissal of the PPE hoarding claim, finding that that the taking over of “mask-producing factories and buying up a substantial portion of the world's supply of personal-protective equipment” was commercial in nature.