Despite long-running international efforts to end forced labor, including modern forms of slavery and human trafficking, it remains a prevalent occurrence throughout the world. The most recent data from the International Labor Organization (ILO) is disturbing. It discloses that at least 20.9 million people around the world are the victims of forced labor today.

Following the takeover of Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces on July 11, 1995, Rizo Mustafić and his family, as well as Hasan Nuhanović’s parents and brother, were sent away from the UN compound in Potočari, within the Srebrenica enclave, by the Dutch forces (Dutchbat) who were based there. Shortly thereafter, Bosnian Serb forces killed Rizo Mustafić, Ibro Nuhanović, Nasiha Nuhanović-Mehinagić, and Muhamed Nuhanović. Mustafić’s surviving wife and children, and Nuhanović’s other son (applicants) filed separate suits for incurred damages against the Netherlands, arguing that the Dutchbat acted wrongfully by sending their relatives away from the compound. On September 6, 2013, the Dutch Supreme Court issued its two judgments in the matter, holding that the Netherlands was responsible for the conduct of the Dutchbat and had acted wrongfully towards the applicants.

Although it provides limited normative guidance, the General Assembly’s recent resolution, “The right to privacy in the digital age,” signals both renewed international interest in the human right to privacy as well as a commitment by United Nations (UN) institutions to explore the meaning of this right in the digital age.

On November 24, 2013, the Islamic Republic of Iran, together with the E3/EU–comprised of France, Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK)–as well as the People’s Republic of China (China), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States of America (US) agreed to the Joint Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program (Joint Plan of Action). The Joint Plan of Action aims at ensuring the Islamic Republic of Iran’s exclusive peaceful nuclear program through mutually-agreed steps between the so-called E3/EU+3 and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Though much has been said about the Joint Plan of Action since its adoption, not enough attention has been paid to its historical context; such neglect risks the Joint Plan of Action being, at best, viewed in isolation. This note bridges that gap by providing an overview of the events that led the Islamic Republic of Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and Germany (P5+1) to agree on the Joint Plan of Action.

The Maritime Labour Convention (Convention) is a global legal instrument developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva. It was drafted with a view to completing the international regulatory regime for quality shipping as the “fourth pillar,” standing next to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Its two fundamental aims are to ensure comprehensive and worldwide protection of the rights of seafarers, and in doing so, to also allow a level playing field for states and ship owners committed to providing decent working and living conditions for seafarers by protecting them from unfair competition on the part of substandard ships. To this end, the establishment of firm rules that can be flexibly implemented by state parties, while at the same time providing rigorous compliance and enforcement procedures to safeguard their integrity and efficiency, are important aspects underlying the Convention.

In recent years, national and international courts have grappled with the questions of foreign state immunity and foreign official immunity from domestic jurisdiction over claims arising from human rights abuses committed under color of foreign law. Foreign state immunity involves the immunity ratione personae of the state as a juridical person, as well as that of the state’s agencies, instrumentalities, and political subdivisions. Foreign official immunity involves the immunity ratione personae of incumbent heads of state and diplomats, as well as the immunity ratione materiae of other current and former officials for acts performed in the scope of their official duties.

The right to a nationality is well established in international human rights law. In 1954 and 1961, the United Nations adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, respectively. Inspired by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two Conventions provide for a right to nationality and prohibit deprivation or denial of nationality. In 2012, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) drafted four guidelines on statelessness that expand on provisions of the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions. They contain guidance sections directed specifically at governments, civil society organizations, legal practitioners, decision-makers and the judiciary as well as UNHCR and other UN agency staff involved in addressing statelessness.

In May 2014, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, an expert body tasked with monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by its state parties, issued its concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Holy See. The observations mark a definitive turning point in the approach of the treaty body concerning the nature of obligations which the Holy See incurs under the Convention; shed light on the concrete modalities which the Holy See could embrace to perform these obligations; and tie into the broader discussion on the extraterritorial reach of human rights treaties, in casu, the CRC.

From August 25 to 27, 2013, the Seventh Annual International Humanitarian Law Dialogs were held at the Chautauqua Institution in Lake Chautauqua, New York. Primarily organized by the Robert H. Jackson Center and cosponsored by other institutions and organizations including the American Society of International Law, the Dialogs bring together international criminal prosecutors, practitioners of international justice, scholars, NGO leaders, human rights activists, students, and members of the public to discuss pressing issues of international peace and justice.