Those who have been following international headlines for the past year can observe the increased prevalence of discussions on nuclear weapons, including between the United States and North Korea. In the margins of the discussions, the law and policy discussions around nuclear non-proliferation become very relevant. After all, the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are very clear. “Studies have shown that the detonation of nuclear weapons would cause widespread death, injury and damage, especially if it occurred in or near a populated area.” There would be extensive casualties from severe burns and blunt force trauma that would occur in the moments after the detonation, as a result of blast effects and the release of thermal radiation. As such, most communities would not necessarily have the capacity to enact appropriate response mechanisms. “[A]ssessments undertaken by the ICRC have highlighted that there is a lack of capacity in most countries and at the international level to adequately respond to a nuclear detonation, and to provide assistance that would benefit a substantial portion of survivors in the aftermath.” Amid these considerations, the first-ever nuclear ban treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty), was negotiated in the halls of the UN headquarters in New York. Before analyzing the Treaty itself, a word on how it came about and the legal framework that preceded it.

The Artemis Accords (the Accords) reproduced below were signed on September 13, 2020, by the administrator of the U.S. space agency, NASA, and seven other space agencies. The intervening years since then have underscored their importance: they may give a boost to the development of the legal regime of outer space exploration and use as defined by the existing treaty framework, while supporting the U.S. interpretation of the non-appropriation principle, or they may upset the existing legal regime of Outer Space, leading to its fragmentation by abandoning multilateralism. This introductory note highlights those aspects of the Accords that may affect the edifice of the international law relating to Outer Space, even if the Accords themselves are not legally binding, as explained briefly below.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki signed a historic agreement on July 9, 2018, in Asmara, Eritrea, ending over two decades of open hostilities and war. The Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship (Joint Declaration) marks a fundamental change for the Horn of Africa, with the reconciliation possibly altering the economic and political dynamics of the region. The Joint Declaration resulted from several key developments occurring over a few weeks from June through early July 2018. Ethiopia announced its acceptance of the original Algiers Agreement, dated December 12, 2000, which had never been implemented, and its willingness to abide by the 2002 international Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling that awarded disputed territory to Eritrea, including the border town of Badme. Previously, Ethiopia had rejected the ruling and asked for a new ruling. Ethiopia had also previously insisted that relations must be restored before any territorial resolution. President Afwerki agreed to negotiate, after stating for years that Ethiopia had to withdraw its troops from the disputed town of Badme first. A few weeks before the signing of the Joint Declaration, the Eritrean foreign minister visited Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, marking the first bilateral meeting between the two since the war began.

On September 24, 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its judgment on the preliminary objection filed by Chile in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean.1 Chile had objected to the ICJ’s jurisdiction arguing that Bolivia’s application raises a dispute that had already been settled by the 1904 Peace Treaty Between Bolivia and Chile. The ICJ, however, rejected this jurisdictional objection and agreed to consider the merits of Bolivia’s claim that Chile has an obligation to negotiate in good faith the issue of Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

On September 30, 2014, Afghanistan signed agreements with the United States and NATO providing for U.S. and NATO military presences in Afghanistan following termination in December 2014 of the post-9/11 U.S. “Operation Enduring Freedom” (OEF) and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) military missions.

On October 19, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) ruled that policies pursued by de facto authorities in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova aimed at suppressing Moldovan-language education violated the right to education of the affected children and their parents. The Court held Russia responsible for these violations by virtue of the continued vital support Russia provides to the de facto authorities. Meanwhile, the Court found Moldova to have complied with residual human rights obligations it retained, despite lacking effective control over Transdniestria. This important judgment develops the jurisprudence of the Court in relation to human rights violations arising from conduct of de facto authorities. However, it does not fully clarify the standards the Court applies in attributing their conduct to third states.

Between 2007 and 2009, Italy and Libya (then under the rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi) concluded several agreements to combat clandestine immigration. Pursuant to these agreements, Italy instated a policy of sending undocumented migrants and asylum seekers who had crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Africa back to Libya. In a number of cases, boats were intercepted on the high seas, and those on board sent back to Libya without a prior individualized assessment of their situation and protection needs. The present judgment concerns one such ‘‘push back operation’’ during which Italy intercepted a group of Somali and Eritrean nationals on the high seas, took them back to Tripoli, and handed them over to the Libyan authorities.

In recent years, national and international courts have grappled with the questions of foreign state immunity and foreign official immunity from domestic jurisdiction over claims arising from human rights abuses committed under color of foreign law. Foreign state immunity involves the immunity ratione personae of the state as a juridical person, as well as that of the state’s agencies, instrumentalities, and political subdivisions. Foreign official immunity involves the immunity ratione personae of incumbent heads of state and diplomats, as well as the immunity ratione materiae of other current and former officials for acts performed in the scope of their official duties.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, commonly known as Schrems II, invalidating the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield as a valid transfer mechanism under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and creating significant legal uncertainty for the continued availability of another widely used transfer mechanism, Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), for transfers of EU personal data from commercial entities in the EU to the United States. The widely anticipated ruling marked the second time in five years that the CJEU had invalidated the legal foundation for such data transfers, which in both cases had been the result of a carefully negotiated compromise balancing European data privacy concerns with statutory and constitutional limitations of the U.S. system (see Schrems I).

On July 17, 2018, the Human Rights Committee, the monitoring body of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), rendered decisions in two similar cases brought by two French nationals against the French state. Both petitioners were Muslim women who challenged Act No. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010, a French law under which wearing of the niqab, also known as a “full-face veil,” in public spaces is prohibited. These seminal cases constitute the first time that an international arbiter of human rights has ruled that France's face-veil ban violates the human rights of its citizens.