Between 2007 and 2009, Italy and Libya (then under the rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi) concluded several agreements to combat clandestine immigration. Pursuant to these agreements, Italy instated a policy of sending undocumented migrants and asylum seekers who had crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Africa back to Libya. In a number of cases, boats were intercepted on the high seas, and those on board sent back to Libya without a prior individualized assessment of their situation and protection needs. The present judgment concerns one such ‘‘push back operation’’ during which Italy intercepted a group of Somali and Eritrean nationals on the high seas, took them back to Tripoli, and handed them over to the Libyan authorities.

On December 15, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’) issued its final ruling in Al-Khawaja & Tahery v. United Kingdom. This highly anticipated ruling reexamined the United Kingdom’s laws that allowed convictions based primarily on the statement of a witness unavailable for cross-examination. This is the second time the ECtHR has visited this issue, after the U.K. courts declined to follow the earlier ECtHR’s decision that found that the U.K. law violated the European Convention on Human Rights (‘‘European Convention’’).

On January 17, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (‘‘D.C. Circuit’’) issued its decision in Republic of Argentina v. B.G. Group PLC, overturning a final award of a United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘‘UNCITRAL’’) arbitral tribunal issued in favor of BG Group PLC (‘‘BG Group’’). According to the Court, the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority by taking jurisdiction over the dispute when BG Group failed to first submit its claims to the courts of Argentina for a period of eighteen months, as required by the Agreement Between theGovernment of the UnitedKingdomof Great Britainand Northern Ireland andthe Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (the ‘‘U.K.-Argentina BIT’’).

On December 21, 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘‘ECJ’’) issued a long-awaited judgment in a reference for preliminary ruling in proceedings brought by the Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc. (‘‘ATA and others’’) against the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The judgment intends to clarify the highly contentious issue of whether the application of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (‘‘EU ETS’’) to aviation activities under the Directive 2008/101/EC is compatible with international law, and whether it violates the sovereignty of other states or the freedom of the high seas.

On February 3, 2012, the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued a widely-anticipated judgment in a dispute over state immunity between Italy and Germany. The Court found that Italy violated its international law obligation to respect the jurisdictional immunity of the German state by: (i) allowing individuals to bring civil claims against Germany in Italian courts for violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945; (ii) declaring Greek judgments finding similar international law violations by Germany enforceable in Italy; and (iii) taking measures of constraint against public and non-commercial property owned by Germany in Italy. The Court accordingly found that Italy must ensure that the decisions of its courts infringing upon Germany’s immunity cease to have effect.

In November 2011, Palestine was admitted to the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (‘‘UNESCO’’), a specialized agency of the United Nations, as a Member State. Since that time, Palestine has become a party to several UNESCO treaties.