Over the years, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian legal practice has responded to foreign and international economic sanctions reactively. As a rule, Russia has not initiated economic sanctions as an assertive measure against other countries, will apply sanctions authorized by an international organization of which it is a member and for which sanctions it has voted, and retaliates almost reflexively against economic sanctions imposed by others specifically against Russia, seemingly with little regard for the self-imposed consequences of its actions. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation authorizes (Article 1194), as did its predecessor the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, the introduction of retaliatory measures (retorsion) in response to similar measures against Russian citizens and juridical persons in other states.

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.

On October 11, 2013, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (Court) rendered the “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi” in the case of Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi. In this important decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber, for the first time in the history of the Court, found a case inadmissible and decided that Libya may proceed with domestic proceedings against Mr. Al-Senussi.