On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion on Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. By votes of 11–4, the Court found that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) was unlawful and needed to be ended as rapidly as possible. By a 14–1 majority, the Court also found that Israel was obligated to cease all new settlement activities, evacuate existing settlers from the OPT, and make reparation. The ICJ further opined by votes of 12–3 that all states and international organizations were obliged not to recognize as legal the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT, that all states must refrain from giving aid or assistance to the maintenance of that situation, and that the United Nations “should consider the precise modalities” required to bring Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT to an end.

On March 5, 2024, the “Best Practices for the Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art” were introduced in Washington, DC.1 Prepared by the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and diplomats from various countries, they are presented as legally non-binding but morally important standards to clarify and improve the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.2 As such, they reinforce earlier calls on states to identify artifacts lost due to Nazi persecution and support “just and fair” solutions for title issues. Nevertheless, they go beyond these earlier instruments by proposing further action and widening key elements of the material norm.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Doe v. Cisco Systems, Inc. shows that there may yet be life in the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The court held that Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong could bring claims of aiding and abetting human rights violations against Cisco Systems and its CEO for designing and building a surveillance system for the People's Republic of China. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, more than a year after the original decision, with a long dissent joined by six judges. This introductory note discusses the panel opinion and the opinions on the petition for rehearing. The story may not be over yet, however, because Cisco has petitioned for Supreme Court review.

On May 1, 2025, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Government of Ontario in a youth-driven climate case in which seven youth plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge to the Government’s lack of action with respect to climate change. As reported by JURIST, the plainfiffs argued that Ontario’s use of Section 16 of the 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act to modify the 2016 Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act resulted in a watering down of the requirments in the Climate Change Act and effectively subjects youth and indigenous communities to dangerous and arbitrary levels of CO2 emissions. They seek an order declaring that their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms have been violated. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded in October 2024 that government climate change targets must comply with the Charter and affirmed that the government’s actions are putting people at risk. The refusal by the Supreme Court to take the appeal confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal means the case will return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ application.