Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

Fedotova v. Russ. (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

On June 13, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia. The ECtHR found that Russia was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for not allowing same-sex couples to have their partnerships legally recognized. The decision reflects the ECtHR's firm position: the formal recognition of partnership shall not depend on the partners' sex, and the complete exclusion of same-sex couples cannot be justified with opposing public sentiments or the need to protect traditional families. While the Fedotova ruling is the first judgment that challenged the discriminatory legislative framework in a country belonging to the Eastern Bloc of the Council of Europe, it is not unprecedented. In its judgment, the ECtHR applied the standards entrenched in the case law on the rights of same-sex partners and, although it did not address the issue of marriage equality under Article 12 of the ECHR, it did conclude that the applicants' rights under Article 8 had been violated.

Arbitral Award of Oct. 3, 1899 (Guy. v. Venez.) (Decision on Jurisdiction) (I.C.J.)

On December 18, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision on the jurisdiction of the Court in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela). By a 14–2 majority, the Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide certain elements of the application submitted unilaterally by Guyana against Venezuela, while it concluded unanimously that it lacks jurisdiction over other aspects of Guyana's application. Having established jurisdiction over certain elements of Guyana's application, the ICJ will now proceed to hear the merits of the claims.

Briefly Noted

The appellants originally brought this case against the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), alleging that IFC negligently funded (via a company based in India) a power project in India that damaged the appellants' environment, health, and livelihoods. The issue of whether IFC was immune from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 went to the Supreme Court, which decided in 2019 that international organizations enjoy the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—meaning that they can be sued in the U.S. if their actions fall within one of the exceptions to the FSIA, including the exception for “commercial activities.” The Supreme Court's decision was published in full in Volume 58, Issue 3 of International Legal Materials. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which had held that international organizations (unlike foreign governments) had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act. The case was remanded to the D.C. District Court, which dismissed the complaint in February 2020 because the “gravamen” of the complaint occurred outside the U.S., rendering the commercial activities exception inapplicable. Budha Jam et al. appealed that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision in July 2021. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the significant activity was IFC decision-making in the U.S., agreeing with the District Court that the gravamen of the complaint occurred outside the U.S.

Joined Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18 Peterson v. Google & Youtube And Elsevier v. Cyando (C.J.E.U.)

Since its inception, the internet has challenged many basic principles of international copyright law. While some key “digital copyright” issues have been addressed in multilateral treaties, one of the most vexing issues with the global digital network remains—the question of the responsibility of third-party intermediaries for copyright infringements by internet users.

Judgment on Foreign Soldiers' Immunity for War Crimes Committed Abroad (BGH)

On January 28, 2021, the German Federal Court of Justice, or Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's highest court of ordinary jurisdiction, delivered its judgment in Case 3 StR 564/19 pertaining to questions of universal jurisdiction over international crimes and the extent to which foreign soldiers would be barred from prosecution in Germany based on claims of (functional) immunity for war crimes committed abroad. The decision strikes at the heart of a debate where such exceptions to immunity (ratione materiae) are yet to be uniformly agreed upon at an international level; it also comes on the verge of a number of related judgments that are pending both in German and other European courts. In the present case, the BGH held that according to the general rules of international law, criminal prosecution in Germany for war crimes committed abroad would not be precluded based on the notion of functional immunity, “when the acts have been committed by a foreign, lower-ranking defendant in the exercise of foreign sovereign activity.” Neither the BGH nor Germany's supreme guardian of the “Basic Law,” the Federal Constitutional Court, or Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), has previously pronounced itself on questions of functional immunity in criminal proceedings.