An important ruling, with international implications regarding the increasingly fraught and unsettled realm of state regulation in the digital sphere, came from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on September 15, 2020. In its ruling in the case of Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke, the CJEU stepped in to make a strong defense of legislation intended to secure so-called “net neutrality”—the principle of internet regulation meant to ensure that internet service providers cannot unduly restrict end-user access to certain internet applications or services based solely on commercial considerations. The ruling continues the CJEU's strict legal interpretations in furtherance of EU regulation and protection of consumer and individual rights in the digital sphere, with a clear eye toward cementing Europe's position in the vanguard of digital regulation and in the hope that such principles will be replicated and upheld elsewhere.

On March 5, 2020, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its unanimous Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The decision came after an appeal of the Pre-Trial Chamber II's unanimous decision in April 2019 rejecting the Prosecutor's request to proceed with an investigation. The Appeals Chamber's decision allows the prosecutor to immediately begin an investigation “in relation to alleged crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan in the period since 1 May 2003, as well as other alleged crimes that have a nexus to the armed conflict in Afghanistan and are sufficiently linked to the situation and were committed on the territory of other States Parties in the period since 1 July 2002.”

In 2021, Hong Kong's electoral system underwent its most significant reform since the People's Republic of China (PRC) resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. By a decision adopted on March 11, 2021 to “improve the electoral system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and develop a democratic system suited to the actual situation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (HKSAR), the National People's Congress (NPC) decided to amend the methods of selecting the Chief Executive of the HKSAR and forming the Legislative Council of the HKSAR (LegCo). The existing Election Committee would be reformed and given a pivotal role in the elections of the Chief Executive and LegCo members. A new candidate qualification review committee would be established to qualify all candidates. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) was empowered to amend the first two annexes of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law), which specify the methods for selecting the Chief Executive and forming the LegCo. The HKSAR would amend local election laws to implement the reforms and organize future elections in accordance with the law. The Chief Executive would submit timely reports to the Central People's Government. The NPC Decision was adopted with 2,895 votes in favor and one abstention.

On December 19, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, the Court) interpreted Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on May 28, 1999 (Montreal Convention), in its judgment in the Niki Luftfahrt case.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment on October 6, 2020 in case C-66/18 following long deliberations. The case concerned an amendment to the Hungarian law on national higher education (HEA) in 2017, requiring both new and established foreign universities in Hungary (the host state) to prove that they had a physical campus in their home state and, if their host and home states failed to conclude an international treaty on the university's operation in Hungary within a period of six months, they were forced to close and leave the Hungarian market. Of the 24 established foreign university programs in Hungary in 2017, one was particularly affected by the new requirement: an American university operating in Hungary, whose founder was at odds with the Hungarian Government, was forced to stop admitting students.

On Tuesday, April 20, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in Case C-896/19, Repubblika v. Il-Prim Ministru that Malta's system for appointing judges did not contradict EU law. As reported by JURIST, the ruling went before the national court when Repubblika, an association created to promote the rule of law in Malta, had challenged the procedure, which was provided by the Constitution of Malta. The process in the Maltese Constitution stated that judiciary members are appointed by the president acting under the advisement of the prime minister. However, appointees must satisfy certain conditions and are subject to background checks or other examinations by the Judicial Appointments Committee, whose purpose is to assess candidates and provide feedback to the prime minister. The national court brought this to the CJEU to decide whether this system was constitutional under EU law, specifically under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states that member states must provide conditions for a fair, independent, and impartial trial to ensure true justice. The court reached the conclusion that this practice was not prohibited by EU law because, in order to guarantee conditions of judicial independence and impartiality, procedures must exist to ensure that appointees are free from influence from the legislature and/or executive with regard to judiciary proceedings. The Court found that power of the prime minister to submit a candidate that was not suggested by the Judicial Appointments Committee was not contrary to EU law because of various safeguarding measures included in the Constitution. The Court held: “Inasmuch as the Prime Minister exercises that power only in quite exceptional circumstances and adheres to strict and effective compliance with that obligation to state reasons, that power is not such as to give rise to legitimate doubts concerning the independence of the candidates selected” (para. 71). Therefore, the Court concluded that the national provisions at issue do not give rise to any legitimate uncertainties, or doubts of independence, regarding the chosen judiciary candidates.

On December 7, 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted two legal instruments, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, which together make up the new EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR). Similar to the U.S. “Global Magnitsky Act,” and in contrast with the EU's existing country-specific sanctions regimes, the EUGHRSR seeks to address human rights abuses worldwide, by providing for the imposition of travel bans as well as financial sanctions on individual human rights offenders—state and non-state alike. The list of designated (natural and legal) persons will be reviewed on a periodic basis.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems, commonly known as Schrems II, invalidating the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield as a valid transfer mechanism under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and creating significant legal uncertainty for the continued availability of another widely used transfer mechanism, Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), for transfers of EU personal data from commercial entities in the EU to the United States. The widely anticipated ruling marked the second time in five years that the CJEU had invalidated the legal foundation for such data transfers, which in both cases had been the result of a carefully negotiated compromise balancing European data privacy concerns with statutory and constitutional limitations of the U.S. system (see Schrems I).

On June 3, 2020, the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court or the Court of Appeal) dismissed the annulment application brought by the Société Française d'Etudes et de Réalisation d'Equipements Gaziers (Sofregaz, now called TCM FR) of an arbitral award rendered in Paris on December 27, 2018, in favor of the Iranian Natural Gas Storage Company (NGSC), pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Rules). The Court ruled in particular that U.S. sanctions against Iran do not form part of French international public order but that European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) sanctions do. This ruling provides useful guidance on the interaction between international sanctions and international arbitration.

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.

The Russian Constitution was adopted by a referendum on December 12, 1993. It was inspired by Western constitutional traditions and internationally recognised democratic and human rights values. The Constitution established three core features of the Russian constitutional order, all breaking with the Soviet past:

• • The Constitutional provisions on the foundations of the constitutional system, the protection of human rights, and constitutional review are unchangeable and cannot be amended, except via the summoning of a new Constitutional Assembly/national referendum (art. 135).

• • The Constitution established a strongly monist approach to international law, integrating it into the Russian legal order and giving priority to duly ratified international treaties and agreements to override conflicting domestic laws (art. 15(4)).

• • The Russian Constitutional Court enjoys exclusive competence to interpret the Constitution via binding precedents.