On July 25, 2018, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) released its judgment on the case of Alheto, concerning an application for international protection lodged in a European Union (EU) member state by a distinct category of refugees, namely Palestinians registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In dealing with the particular status accorded to such persons, the Court opined that a Palestinian who is registered with UNRWA is excluded from refugee status in the EU, so long as the protection from the UN ad hoc agency is effective, which is ascertained through a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and points of law.

On April 12, 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) refusing to authorize an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the Decision).

On November 1 and 2, 2018, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (the Committee) adopted views pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol in the cases of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al. In respect of both communications, the Committee considered that the interpretation made by the Finland Supreme Administrative Court (the Court), of who was eligible to be a member of the Sami Parliament's electoral roll, violated Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), read alone and in conjunction with Article 27, and in light of Article 1.

On November 16, 2018, the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) rendered the judgment in Case 002/02 against Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. The full written version of the judgment was notified in Khmer, English, and French on March 28, 2019. The Chamber found Nuon and Khieu guilty of crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and genocide of the Vietnamese ethnic, national, and racial group. The Chamber additionally convicted Nuon of genocide of the Cham ethnic and religious group under the doctrine of superior responsibility. Both Nuon and Khieu were sentenced to life imprisonment.

On October 15, 2019, a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in case C-128/18 Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu, a case concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of February 26, 2009. Article 4 of the Charter provides for the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, under Article. Article 4 of the Charter is to have the same meaning and scope as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case involved the issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Dorobantu by a Romanian judicial authority to German authorities, as Mr. Dorobantu resided in Hamburg. Prior to executing the warrant, the German court referred a number of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling concerning material conditions of detention and how to assess whether such conditions comply with EU fundamental rights guarantees. The CJEU ruled effectively that requested judicial authorities must suspend execution of an arrest warrant until they have been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate whether or not the fundamental rights of the person in question are in actual danger of being infringed.

On August 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Bakalian v. Central Bank of Republic of Turkey, Case No. 13-55664. In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation from the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish national banks for lands that they claim were unlawfully confiscated from their ancestors during what the Court refers to as the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923. In 2006, California adopted a statute extending the statute of limitations for claims arising out of the Armenian Genocide to December 31, 2016. Thus, the claims filed by the plaintiffs in 2010 were not time-barred under the statute; however, the panel found that since the Court had previously found the statute to be unconstitutional, no statute existed to extend the statute of limitations and therefore the claims were time-barred. The panel held that since the claims were plainly time-barred, the Court need not address legal questions posed regarding Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act jurisdiction.