On October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland. The judgment contested a criminal provision applied in Switzerland against a Turkish politician who had publicly denied a historical fact of the Armenian genocide. Notwithstanding variations in reasoning, the outcome in the Grand Chamber is similar to the previous decision of the Chamber on this case in 2013. The Swiss criminal provision applied in the context of the denial of the Armenian genocide was again found irreconcilable with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.

The International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on April 16, 2013, in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), a case submitted by special agreement or compromis and jointly notified to the Court on July 20, 2010. The judgment was unanimous on all holdings in the operative part or dispositif, but nevertheless included a declaration by Judge Bennouna and separate opinions by Judges Cancado Trindade and Yusuf as well as Judges ad hoc Mahiou and Daudet. The judgment set forth the parameters within which the border between Burkina Faso and Niger will be demarcated and, as such, should contribute to peace and stability in the region. This case is also notable for what was not decided; despite a clause in the compromis requesting the Court to “place on record” the parties’ agreement regarding the border in two sectors, the Court declined to include the agreement in the judgment’s dispositif, finding for the first time that a matter submitted to it did not constitute a dispute.

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.

Does human rights law require countries to investigate serious crimes and bring those responsible to justice? And if so, how far must a country go to satisfy this requirement? This case concerns the murder of Norbert Zongo, an investigative journalist and director of the weekly Burkinabe magazine L'Indpéndenant, his younger brother Ernest Zongo, and two work companions. All four were killed in Burkina Faso on December 13, 1998, in suspicious circumstances. The case was brought by the families of Zongo and his colleagues (Individual Applicants) and the NGO Burkinabé Human and Peoples' Rights Movement (NGO Applicant, together the Applicants). The Applicants alleged that the murders of Zongo and his colleagues were not a random act of violence, but were instead related to their investigations into various political scandals, including those operating at the very highest levels of Burkinabe government. The Applicants claimed that Burkina Faso officials had not only failed to properly investigate the case, but also deliberately stymied the investigation, leading to a failure to bring those responsible for the deaths to justice. The judgment, rendered on March 28, 2014, is only the second judgment to be rendered on the merits by the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court). The Court ruled unanimously that Burkina Faso had violated Article 1 and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. By a majority of 5 to 4, the Court also found that Burkina Faso had violated Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Article 66(2)(c) of the Revised Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Treaty. Following the judgment on the merits, the Court rendered its reparations judgment, also included here. This is only the second reparations judgment rendered by the Court, and the first to award reparations to the victims.