Latest news with #IX
Forbes
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
International Court Of Justice Dismisses Sudan's Genocide Case Against UAE
On May 5, 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ, also referred to as the Court) delivered its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Sudan in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in Sudan (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates (UAE)). The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system. The case concerns the application, filed by Sudan in March 2025, instituting proceedings against the UAE concerning alleged violations by the UAE of its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, most notably in West Darfur. Sudan's application concerned 'acts which have been perpetrated by (…) Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and militias allied with it, including, but not limited to, genocide, murder, theft of property, rape, forcible displacement, trespassing, vandalism of public properties, and violation of human rights.' According to the application, all such acts have been 'perpetrated and enabled by the direct support given to the rebel RSF militia and related militia groups by the United Arab Emirates.' The application also concerned 'acts adopted, condoned, taken, and being taken by the Government of the UAE in connection with the genocide against the Masalit group in the Republic of the Sudan since at least 2023.' Sudan submitted that the UAE 'is complicit in the genocide on the Masalit through its direction of and provision of extensive financial, political, and military support for the rebel RSF militia.' In its order released on May 5, 2025, the ICJ rejected the case. When announcing the order, the Court explained it may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded. The Court noted that the UAE, when acceding to the Genocide Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX, seeking to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court. Having regard to the UAE's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, the Court observed that Article IX of that Convention cannot constitute, prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case. As such, the Court could not indicate the provisional measures requested. Moreover, the Court considered that, in light of the UAE's reservation and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan's application. The case will therefore be removed from its docket. In its order, the Court emphasized that there is a fundamental distinction between the question of acceptance by States of the Court's jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law. Whether or not States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, they are required to comply with their obligations under that instrument, and they remain responsible for acts attributable to them which are contrary to their international obligations. To put it simply, the UAE is under the obligations enshrined in the Genocide Convention, namely, the obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. However, without the ICJ being involved, the obligations under the Genocide Convention cannot be enforced in relation to the UAE. The situation in Darfur and the wider Sudan requires urgent consideration and responses. As the war in Sudan entered its third year, the country is facing the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world today. The atrocities committed so far continue to enjoy impunity, including the alleged genocide against the small ethnic minority group - the Masalit. The very serious risk of genocide should trigger States' obligation to prevent, in accordance with the obligations under the Genocide Convention. The inaction cannot be justified.
Hans India
03-05-2025
- Business
- Hans India
GIFT Nifty clocks record $100.93-bn turnover in April
New Delhi: GIFT Nifty has recorded a new milestone in terms of achieving all-time high monthly turnover of $100.93 billion in the month of April, it was announced on Friday. This feat surpasses its previous record of $100.7 billion set in September 2024. The milestone reflects the growing global interest and trust in the GIFT Nifty as a benchmark for the India's growth story, NSE International Exchange (IX) said in a statement.'We are glad to witness the success of GIFT Nifty and express our sincere gratitude to all the participants for their overwhelming support and making GIFT Nifty a successful contract,' NSE IX added. NSE IX is an international multi assets exchange set up at GIFT City on June 5, 2017, and recognised by International Financial Services Centre Authority (IFSCA). NSE IX holds a dominant market share of over 99 per cent, highlighting extensive leadership in GIFT IFSC. Since the first day of full-scale operations, GIFT Nifty has witnessed a total cumulative volume of over 41.18 million contracts with total cumulative turnover of US $1.83 trillion till April IX offers a diversified portfolio of products including Indian Single Stock Derivatives, Index Derivatives, Currency Derivatives, Depository Receipts and Global Stocks. Meanwhile, the market capitalisation of NSE-listed companies reached Rs 410.87 lakh crore ($4.81 trillion) in FY25 (till March 31), from Rs 384.2 lakh crore ($4.61 trillion) in FY24 — a growth of 6.94 per cent year-on-year, according to recent data released by the National Stock Exchange. The total number of companies listed on the NSE stood at 2,720 (as on March 31, 2025). Total unique registered investors reached 11.3 crore (till March 28), with total unique accounts at 21.94 crore (till March 27). New investor registrations in FY25 were 2.09 crore (till March 28), according to the NSE data.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Higher Education Should Learn From Hillsdale
After years of festering antisemitism and utilizing policies thatmanyAmericans deemed unconstitutionally discriminatory, today, higher education is at a crossroads: Shape up or lose billions. The federal government is taking steps to condition federal funds on submitting to the administrations interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes. Its most recent target, Harvard University, says this is an attack on theinstitutional independenceof higher education. What did they expect? This is just what happens when,for decades, you make federal funding the cornerstone of higher educations research and educational initiatives. Those seeking to avoid the federal bully-pulpit should learn from schools like Hillsdale College, Grove City, and Christendom College in Virginia, all of whom refuse to take government funds and thus preserve their independence. The Trump administration has been scrutinizing some of Americas most prestigious academic institutions. First, theycanceled$400 million in federal grants to Columbia University and gave the school a list of demandsto restore funding, including a ban on masks, follow-through on disciplinary proceedings for those who participated in the spring 2024 antisemitic riots, and a crackdown on antisemitism on campus. Columbiacapitulatedto the administrations demands and received their funding back. Now the administration has pulled Harvard Universitys access to federal funding for numerous Title VI violations. The administration provided Harvard with alist of demands, including an order to adopt "merit-based" hiring and admissions policies, to reform programs with an egregious record of antisemitism, and to discontinue DEI programs. Harvardrefusedto capitulate to the administrations demands, arguing that it exceeds their statutory power under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and claiming: "No government - regardless of which party is in power - should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue." The administration responded byfreezing$2.3 billion in federal funds. Unfortunately for Harvard, the federal government likelycancondition federal funding for grants and students based on what is taught, who is admitted, and who is hired. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, universities that accept federal funding have beensubject to Title VI, which explicitlyprohibitsuniversities from discriminating against applicants for admission, current students, or those seeking employment based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Universities that accept federal monies are also subject toTitle IX(which bans sex-based discrimination), theAge Discrimination Actof 1975, and theAmericans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The judiciary isnt likely to side with Harvard here, as precedent is against them. In 1984, the Supreme Court held inGrove City College v. Bellthat schools that accept federal funds are subject to Title IXs regulations, even private universities. In fact, the Fifth Circuit relied on the Grove City decision to hold that universities that accept federal grantsmust complywith federal anti-discrimination regulations. Translation: The Trump administration is well within its rights to condition access to federal money on compliance with its interpretation of federal antidiscrimination law. Given that the Department of Education gives loans to6.3 million studentsevery year and$30 billionin federal grants for research to universities every year, the administrations broad power over federal funding gives them an immeasurable power over institutions of higher education - making expansive federal control over hiring, firing, curriculum, and admissions logically inevitable. Indeed, anti-discrimination provisions are so potent that, afterStudents for Fair Admissionended affirmative action in 2023, universitiesquickly endedrace-based admissions policies to continue receiving federal funds. Our universities have chosen to surrender their independence for access to federal funds. Universities concerned about losing their independence should take a page from Hillsdale College. Hillsdale has not taken a dime from the governmentsince 1975because it recognized that an administration hostile to its values and curriculum could use federal anti-discrimination law to subvert academic freedom and limit its independence. One would think this has made Hillsdale unaffordable, undesirable, and academically lax. Yet this is not the case. Despite the national average for tuition being$43,505, Hillsdale has managed to keep its tuition below average at$31,780. Hillsdale is also clearly attractive to applicants, as it only has a21%acceptance rate. Finally, it is known for its academic rigor; US News ranked it as#50in national liberal arts colleges. Hillsdale itself hascredited its successto its decision to retain independence by rejecting government funding. Surely elite universities like Harvard, which has a$53 billionendowment and tons of wealthy alumni, can stave off the loss of federal funding, like Hillsdale has, to maintain their independence. The Trump administrations actions should wake universities up to a cold, sobering reality: If you want to run your school free from federal oversight,sooner or later, you have to say no to federal funds. Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova's McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has appeared in Fox News, the New York Post, and the Daily Wire.
Fox News
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Sen Collins makes stance on trans athletes in women's sports clear as Maine bucks Trump's executive order
Print Close By Ryan Gaydos Published March 31, 2025 Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, made her stance clear on whether transgender athletes should compete in girls' and women's sports on Monday. Collins said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital that a Maine state law that allows biological males to compete against girls and women is the antithesis to the "spirit and intent of Title IX." CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON "I believe that the State of Maine is under scrutiny because of the state law that allows biological males to play in girls' sports. And that is contrary, not just to the President's executive order, but what I believe is the very spirit and intent of Title IX, which was to provide sports and other athletic activities to girls in a safe and fair way," Collins wrote. The state refused to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order to keep biological males from competing in girls' and women's sports. The Health and Human Services Department's Office of Civil Rights referred the state's "noncompliance with Title IX" to the Justice Department on Friday. "It is critically important to treat people who are transgender with respect and dignity. But that does not change the fact that Title IX, which was passed in 1972, has greatly expanded opportunities for girls and young women to participate in organized sports at the high school and college levels," Collins added. "It did so, in part, by mandating equal access to athletic resources and facilities on the basis of sex – not on the basis of gender identity. Safe and fair athletic competition has been one of the keys to the success of Title IX. That is why I do not believe that transgender athletes should compete in girls' and women's athletics. "I will continue to advocate for Maine to receive its fair share of federal funding, something I have done successfully so far, but I support the original intent behind Title IX." Maine school officials explained why they refused to comply with Trump's executive order on Monday. "The Maine Principals' Association is bound by the law, including the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which our participation policy reflects," officials wrote. "We are unable to sign any resolution agreement that would mandate we create a new policy that would violate the law and MHRA. "As such, we have not signed and will not sign the resolution agreement sent by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. With respect to the Federal Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, resolution agreement, we were not a direct recipient of that agreement, so we are not required to respond." MAINE SCHOOL OFFICIALS EXPLAIN WHY STATE WAS IN 'NONCOMPLIANCE WITH TITLE IX' AFTER REFERRAL TO DOJ Maine School Administrative District 51 also pointed to the Maine Human Rights Act. "The MSAD #51 Board of Directors is guided by the Mission, Vision, and Core Values of our district. This includes promoting a safe, caring and ethical learning environment where each person will be treated with respect and fairness; and individuals are recognized, valued and supported," its letter reads. "To our students: Thank you for your maturity, perseverance, and dedication to learning through these distractions. Please continue to lead the way. "To our teachers and staff: We deeply appreciate your unwavering commitment to our students. Your dedication makes a profound impact, and we are grateful for your resilience and compassion. Please note that no Board policies have changed at this time. We encourage you to continue supporting every student, socially and academically, as you always have." The Maine Human Rights Act was amended four years ago to add gender identity as a protected class and specifically stated that denying a person an equal opportunity to participate in sports is discrimination against education. The Maine Principals' Association updated its policy to allow athletes to compete against the gender they identify as last year. A University of New Hampshire poll released Thursday showed that 64% of Maine residents believe transgender athletes "definitely should not" or "probably should not" participate in girls' and women's sports. Only 29% of Maine residents believed that transgender athletes "probably should" or "definitely should" compete against girls and women in sports. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey and Maine's Education Department have not responded to requests for comment. Fox News' Julia Johnson and CB Cotton contributed to this report. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter . Print Close URL
The Hill
29-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Fired Department of Education employees clean out desks
Hundreds of fired government employees filed into the Department of Education headquarters in Washington on Friday in order to collect their personal belongings and say their goodbyes. Former workers were given 30 minutes to do this. Afterward, they were walked out of the building's doors. Earlier this month, nearly half of the department's staff was laid off. The education workforce now totals 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when President Trump returned to office in January. Supporters and other federal workers, some of whom still work for the Education Department, were also at the headquarters to rally against the cuts. Downsizing the federal government has been a core goal of Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But some say there is a human toll to workers losing their jobs. 'It's unconscionable that federal workers are being treated like this,' Bradley Custer, one former worker, told NewsNation. 'We are public servants who trusted our government as both employers and as constituents, and it's a major betrayal.' Trump Education Department order Trump last Wednesday signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Department of Education. This would require an act of Congress, though, and eliminating the department would not get the votes needed to do that. So instead, through cuts by DOGE, the Trump administration aims to 'starve' the department so it becomes a much smaller version of what it was before. The Education Department oversees student loans, Title IV and IX enforcement and manages K-12 grant programs as well as school meal programs for low-income students. Trump has previously said that student loans, special needs and nutrition programs will shift to other departments rather than being eliminated entirely. A recent Quinnipiac University Poll shows that 60 percent of all voters surveyed are against cutting the department. However, this was split along party lines: 67 percent of Republicans were in favor of getting rid of the department, while 98 percent of Democrats were opposed to it. Several state officials, again in mostly red states, say they'd be happy to have the money that the federal government issues be in their hands so that they can make decisions closer to the local level. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R), speaking to NewsNation's 'Blake Burman', said he's fully in support of DOGE cuts to the federal department. 'What we want is that money unfettered and our ability to place that in the classroom where it belongs,' he told Burman.
