In 2013, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in a dispute between Cambodia and Thailand (the 2013 Judgment)1 over the interpretation of the ICJ’s previous decision in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (the 1962 Judgment).2 The parties’ dispute arises from longstanding uncertainty over the location of the territorial boundary between Cambodia and Thailand in the region of the Dangrek Mountains. Neither the original judgment nor its interpretation fully resolves this uncertainty, although together they confirm Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear and the high promontory on which it stands.

On November 16, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reversed by majority the findings of a unanimous Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (Gotovina). In so doing, it acquitted two Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, on all counts of the indictment, including persecution and deportation as crimes against humanity, and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war.

On April 29, 2015, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (BPGs). This comprehensive and practical document is based on an extensive range of international law sources, standards, and good practice. It provides states with specific and specialized guidance on how to fulfill their international obligations to protect against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

In Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) panel unanimously dismissed an investment claim by an Israeli investor filed pursuant to the Israel-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) against Uzbekistan. The tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the investment was not “implemented,” i.e., “established” in accordance with the laws and regulations of Uzbekistan as it was the result of corrupt practices by the investor. To reach this conclusion, the tribunal relied, inter alia, on the requirement of consent as set forth in Article 46 of the ICSID Convention. Ultimately, the tribunal decided that as a consequence of having no jurisdiction over the claims, it had no jurisdiction over Uzbekistan’s counterclaims.