On April 10, 2019, the International Tribunal of the Sea (ITLOS) gave judgment in the M/V “Norstar” (Panama v. Italy) case. This was the first time an international tribunal had ruled directly on the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters. Specifically, ITLOS found (by fifteen votes to seven) that by arresting and detaining the Panamanian-flagged M/V “Norstar”, Italy had violated Article 87(1) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In doing so, the Tribunal arguably relied on a quite expansive understanding of the exclusive flag state jurisdiction principle as set out in Article 92 UNCLOS—a point that was argued forcefully in a seven-judge dissenting opinion. Below, I will briefly outline the background to the case before setting out the central aspects of the judgment and considering further this point of contention surrounding the permissibility of nonflag prescriptive measures in international waters.

On October 5, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or Commission) issued its long-awaited decision in the case of José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others concerning the United States. The case is related to the U.S. military intervention in Panama on December 20, 1989, which resulted in the ouster of General Manuel Noriega Moreno, the country's ruler at the time. This U.S. military operation—better known as “Operation Just Cause”—has been the subject of extensive commentary historically and wide reflection on the number of casualties, effects, legality, and scope.

On June 5, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Coman. In this important ruling, the Court made it clear that under EU law, the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen can move and reside with the latter in the territory of another EU member state, just as the opposite-sex spouse of an EU citizen can. Although the case is very important in that it was the first time the Court has recognized that same-sex marriages must be treated in exactly the same way as opposite-sex marriages for a specific legal purpose (family reunification rights of EU citizens who exercise EU free movement rights), it creates a number of new questions and highlights a number of gaps that persist even following its delivery.

In 2014, the Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi (Elite Taxi) brought an action before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No. 3, Barcelona, Spain) for the infringement of the national law on taxi services and the carrying out of misleading practices and acts of unfair competition by Uber Systems Spain SL (Uber). The two parties in the main proceedings are Elite Taxi, a taxi drivers' association in Barcelona, and Uber, a company related to Uber Technologies Inc. In the proceedings, Uber argued that its smartphone app constituted only a technical platform and should be regulated as an “information society service,” subject to EU law. However, the court ruled against Uber and found that it was providing a “service in the field of transport,” making the company subject to the potentially more stringent regulations of individual EU member states.

In October 2018, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) adopted General Comment 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the guarantee of the right to life.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) took an unusual step in issuing its “General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.” Unlike most of CESCR's other General Comments, General Comment No. 24 does not tackle a specific right. Instead, it consolidates and elaborates the Committee's jurisprudence on states' obligations in the area of business and human rights, providing clarity on its approach to some of the most contentious issues within the field of business and human rights. This General Comment has the potential to have profound implications for the ongoing development of legal standards in the area of business and human rights, including implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP).

On May 15, 2019, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in R (Privacy International) v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others that that the extent of the U.K. government's power to hack into internet services is subject to judicial review. The case concerned whether the British Parliament was sufficiently clear in drafting an “ouster” clause in an attempt to keep the decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which oversees challenges to the U.K. intelligence services, from review by other courts. It was instigated in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's disclosures of the U.K. government's bulk hacking techniques when Privacy International challenged them in the IPT. After the IPT sided with the government, Privacy International sought judicial review, and ultimately the Supreme Court determined that the language of the ouster clause was insufficiently clear, and consequently, the IPT is now subject to oversight by U.K. courts.