The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL) was passed on June 30, 2020 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). It did not have immediate direct effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). After consulting the Committee for the Basic Law of the HKSAR (BLC) and the Government of the HKSAR (HKSARG), the NPCSC added the NSL to Annex III of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) before the Chief Executive of the HKSAR (Chief Executive) promulgated the NSL for local application. All this happened on June 30, enabling the NSL to enter into force at 11 p.m., just ahead of the twenty-third anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR on July 1, 2020.

On June 11, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13928 Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court under the authority vested in him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other federal statutes. Although the Trump Administration had earlier threatened aggressive action against the International Criminal Court (ICC), the issuance of the E.O. followed a ruling by the ICC Appeals Chamber authorizing the Prosecutor to commence an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, which might implicate U.S. persons. The E.O. declared the ICC's “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over U.S. personnel and the personnel of “certain of its allies” to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” within the meaning of IEEPA. It is a sweeping measure, blocking all property within the United States owned by designated natural or legal person (section 1); barring any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to, or for the benefit of, designated persons (section 3), including even the donation of food, clothing, or medicine (section 2). The E.O. also authorized the imposition of certain immigration restrictions, including suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials and their immediate family members (Section 4).

On July 1, 2020, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2532 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the world and its impact on international peace and security. After determining that “the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,” the Council called upon all parties to armed conflicts to apply an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and to engage in “a durable humanitarian pause … in order to enable the safe, unhindered and sustainable delivery of humanitarian assistance, provisions of related services by impartial humanitarian actors … and medical evacuations.” The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has called for a global ceasefire in connection with an international health emergency.

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.”

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).

Issued on June 24, 2020, this is the first judgment of the Court on sexual violence in schools. The case involved the death of a student in a public high school in Ecuador, who was the victim of sexual violence nearly twenty years ago. Following the coerced termination of a pregnancy, the student committed suicide. Following her death, her family filed several complaints against the school and its vice principal, but a proper investigation was never undertaken, nor have any Ecuadorian courts ruled on the matter. Therefore, the victim's mother filed a petition at the Inter-American Commission, arguing that Ecuador was responsible for her daughter's death. The Commission agreed, finding that Ecuador was responsible for violating the deceased's rights to life; physical, mental, and moral integrity; privacy; special protection as a child; equal protection; progressive development; and education. Moreover, the Commission found that the family's rights to humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection were violated. Finally, it held that Ecuador failed to respect the obligation in Article 7 of the Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women. The Commission made several recommendations to Ecuador as a result, but Ecuador failed to comply with its recommendations. Therefore, the Commission took the case to the Court for an official declaration of Ecuador's responsibility.