The ICC considered two central questions: First, whether South Africa failed to comply with its obligations under the statute by not arresting and surrendering Al-Bashir to the Court while he was in South African territory despite having received a request from the ICC under Articles 87 and 89 of the Statute for his arrest and surrender. Second, whether a formal finding of noncompliance by South Africa in this respect and referral of the matter to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute or to the United Nations Security Council are warranted.

On August 19, 2014, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued its Advisory Opinion on the “Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in need of International Protection” (the Opinion). This key Opinion is the first time that the Court has addressed states’ obligations to protect the rights of migrant children, in response to a joint submission by four members of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Does human rights law require countries to investigate serious crimes and bring those responsible to justice? And if so, how far must a country go to satisfy this requirement? This case concerns the murder of Norbert Zongo, an investigative journalist and director of the weekly Burkinabe magazine L'Indpéndenant, his younger brother Ernest Zongo, and two work companions. All four were killed in Burkina Faso on December 13, 1998, in suspicious circumstances. The case was brought by the families of Zongo and his colleagues (Individual Applicants) and the NGO Burkinabé Human and Peoples' Rights Movement (NGO Applicant, together the Applicants). The Applicants alleged that the murders of Zongo and his colleagues were not a random act of violence, but were instead related to their investigations into various political scandals, including those operating at the very highest levels of Burkinabe government. The Applicants claimed that Burkina Faso officials had not only failed to properly investigate the case, but also deliberately stymied the investigation, leading to a failure to bring those responsible for the deaths to justice. The judgment, rendered on March 28, 2014, is only the second judgment to be rendered on the merits by the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court). The Court ruled unanimously that Burkina Faso had violated Article 1 and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. By a majority of 5 to 4, the Court also found that Burkina Faso had violated Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Article 66(2)(c) of the Revised Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Treaty. Following the judgment on the merits, the Court rendered its reparations judgment, also included here. This is only the second reparations judgment rendered by the Court, and the first to award reparations to the victims.

On February 15, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or the Court) delivered its preliminary ruling in a case about the detention of Mr. N. Mr. N. was detained pending the examination of his (fourth) asylum application and claimed that his detention was in violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Since his detention was provided for in relevant EU legislation, the question referred to the CJEU was about the validity of this EU legislation.

In June 2014, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) emerged on the world stage when its fighters seized Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, after moving into Iraq from its original base in Syria. Led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-appointed caliph, ISIL's goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. At its peak, ISIL was considered the wealthiest international terrorist organization in the world, estimated to have an annual budget of over $2 billion. ISIL controlled large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, seizing control of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar province, and the historic city of Palmyra in central Syria. In Iraq and Syria, ISIL also seized towns along important supply routes, and controlled critical infrastructure and border crossings. In 2015, the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that ISIL had between twenty thousand and thirty-one thousand fighters in Iraq and Syria, and approximately fifteen thousand of its members were foreign recruits. The acts of brutality committed by ISIL include beheading American journalists; the torture and ruthless slaughter of civilians; the persecution of ethnic minorities and Christians; and gross violations of international human rights that constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

In Belhaj & Rahmatullah (No 1) v. Straw & Ors, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cleared the way for claims against British forces for complicity in acts of rendition and torture abroad to proceed to trial. The judgment in Belhaj was one of a trio of important judgments handed down on January 17, 2017, the other two concerning the doctrine of Crown act of state and the right to detain in noninternational armed conflicts. This Note considers only Belhaj, in which the Supreme Court rejected the arguments that the doctrines of state immunity and/or foreign act of state precluded U.K. courts from hearing the claims.

On January 27, 2017, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2339 to extend by one year the mandate of a sanctions regime to address protracted violence, insecurity, and political turmoil in the Central African Republic (CAR). Three years after the Council first imposed the regime under Resolution 2127 (2013), the Council's adoption of Resolution 2339 made it clear that the situation in CAR continued to require a robust sanctions regime, that sexual violence in CAR needed heightened political attention, and that states should improve the ways they enforce the sanctions regime's travel ban. Similar to its predecessor resolutions, Resolution 2339 included certain limitations aimed at making the sanctions targeted and humane. But, as has been the case with sanctions regimes aimed at other countries, this one suffered from a lack of due process guarantees for ensuring the protection of the human rights of the people and entities that were punished for noncompliance.