Latest news with #judges
France 24
7 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
ICJ climate ruling: five things to watch for
Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. Its own "advisory opinion" is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. Here are some of the key things to watch for when the ICJ delivers its ruling at 1300 GMT on Wednesday: What legal framework? This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider "the entire corpus of international law" in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is "the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer," said Vanuatu. And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions -- if any -- for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law -- "ubi jus, ubi remedium" -- roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of "transboundary" law, often known as the "no-harm" rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 'Future generations' The concept of "intergenerational equity" is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. "The impact of climate change is not bounded by time," argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. © 2025 AFP
Reuters
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Judges vote to not keep Habba as interim us attorney of New Jersey, CNN reports
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - A panel of judges in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey declined to permanently appoint President Donald Trump's former lawyer Alina Habba as the state's top federal prosecutor, CNN reported on Tuesday citing an order from the court.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Simplified: How judges are selected in Malaysia vs UK, Australia, Singapore, India
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Amid recent controversy over the selection of new top-ranking judges in Malaysia, the government has launched a new study to compare how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India, and Singapore. Here's a simplified comparison of how judges are selected and appointed in these five Commonwealth countries, some of which have an independent body called a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Malaysia (Has JAC) Malaysia has a nine-member JAC chaired by the Chief Justice, with the other members being the other top three judges, and five members appointed by the prime minister (a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons). There is a two-step process now, namely selection and then appointment: Step 1: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) filters and selects candidates based on merit, then recommends names to the prime minister. (Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009). Note: Under the JAC Act, the PM can ask the JAC for two alternative names (for vacancies for the top four judges, Federal Court and Court of Appeal). Under the same law, the PM does not need to give any reason for rejecting the names, and there is no limit on how many times the PM can ask for other names. Step 2: After accepting JAC's recommendations, the prime minister submits the names to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Agong then appoints judges based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers (Federal Constitution's Article 122B). The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. The JAC also sends candidates' names for background checks by five agencies: the police, the anti-corruption body, the companies commission, the insolvency department, and the tax authority. The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. — Picture by Raymond Manuel UK (Has JACs) After the UK's constitutional reforms in 2005, there are now three bodies involved in selecting and recommending potential judges (the JAC for England and Wales; Northern Ireland's JAC and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland). Looking specifically at England and Wales, the 15-member JAC is chaired by a layperson, with six judicial members, two professional members, five laypersons, and one non-legally qualified judicial member. The JAC's role is to select candidates on merit, having good character, and to encourage diversity in the range of available candidates. The JAC has a detailed list of items that a candidate has to declare when applying to be a judge (such as criminal convictions, traffic offences, being bankrupt, tax issues) to assess if they are of 'good character', and will also carry out character checks with professional regulatory bodies and the authorities such as for insolvency and tax. The JAC selects judges up to the High Court level, while the JAC would also be part of independent selection panels to select higher-ranking judges or judges at the higher courts. Generally, the Lord Chancellor (who is a Cabinet minister) may accept the JAC's recommendations, and has limited powers to reject or ask for reconsideration of recommended candidates. Generally, the King will appoint judges on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, based on the recommendation by the JAC or an independent selection panel. For certain positions such as Supreme Court judges, the Lord Chancellor's recommendation — based on the panel's recommendation — would go to the prime minister, and the prime minister would advise the King on the appointment. Australia (No JAC) Under Australia's Constitution, the Governor-General 'in Council' appoints judges. (The Governor-General is the head of state, a role that is played by the Agong in Malaysia and the King in the UK.) This means that the Governor-General appoints judges on the advice of the prime minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General (who is part of Cabinet) makes recommendations to the Australian government on who should be appointed as judges. For the appointment of High Court judges, the federal Attorney-General is required by law to consult with the attorney-general of the states in Australia. The Attorney-General's website states that the Australian government's process for appointing judges 'may include' advertising, consulting with the legal professional community to request nominations, and getting advisory panels to assess candidates and give recommendations to the Attorney-General. The website also lists the personal and professional qualities that a judge should have, including outstanding legal expertise; excellent written communication skills; temperament, integrity, impartiality, tact and courtesy. Singapore (No JAC) Under Singapore's constitution, the President appoints judges on the prime minister's advice, if he agrees with the prime minister's advice. Before giving his advice to the President, Singapore's prime minister 'must consult' the Chief Justice on appointments of judges (except for the appointment of the Chief Justice). India (Had JAC for a few months) After amending its Constitution and creating a new law in 2014, India introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — which had the duty of recommending individuals 'of ability and integrity' for the President to appoint as judges. The NJAC was meant to be a six-member panel, chaired by the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the minister in charge of law and justice, two eminent persons. (A three-member committee comprising the CJ, the prime minister, the Opposition Leader would nominate the NJAC's two eminent persons, with one of the eminent persons required to be a woman or from a minority or marginalised group.) But just months after the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act came into effect in April 2015, India's highest court, the Supreme Court, in October 2015 struck down both laws as unconstitutional. India then returned to using its existing 'collegium' system, which is where a group of senior judges select and recommend candidates for the President to appoint. For example, to appoint new Supreme Court judges, there would be a collegium of five judges (the Chief Justice and the four most senior Supreme Court judges), who would give their recommended names via the Chief Justice to India's government. The Chief Justice would give the recommendation to the law minister, who would then forward the recommendation to the prime minister to advise the President on the appointment of the new judges. To JAC or not? Like Malaysia, the four other countries we are looking at are members of the 56-member Commonwealth. In the UK-based Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's 2015 report on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, it was found that it is now 'uncommon' for only the executive branch of government to be responsible for appointing judges. At that time, the report found that 18.7 per cent (nine out of 48 independent Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Singapore) was where the executive was solely responsible for judicial appointments, while 81.3 per cent (39 out of 48 such as India, Malaysia, UK) had a JAC. This figure will now be 38 out of 48 as India has scrapped its JAC, but the 2015 report had noted that a number of countries, which established JACs in relatively quick succession (including the UK, the Maldives, Pakistan and Malaysia) after 2003 showed a 'clear trend' favouring JACs. Recommended reading:
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘Iranian' refugee can stay in Britain – by claiming he's now Afghan
An asylum seeker who claimed to be Iranian has won a reprieve to stay in the UK after maintaining he is now Afghan and in fear of the Taliban. The man, granted anonymity by immigration judges, had his asylum claim rejected 10 years ago after failing to establish that he had a 'well-founded fear of persecution' if returned to Iran. He was not, however, removed from the UK and lodged an appeal, ahead of which he claimed to have lived in Afghanistan until he was 17 before travelling to Iran. He claimed that he had not raised it previously and instead falsely asserted to be Iranian out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan, legal documents disclose. The Home Office argued his credibility was 'significantly undermined' by his claim previously to be Iranian but judges ordered his case should be reheard because he was not present when his appeal was rejected. His lawyers claimed his non-attendance was due to an administrative oversight. The appeal is the latest case revealed in court papers, seen by The Telegraph, where illegal migrants or foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK. It follows the revelation that thousands of Afghans have moved to the UK under a secret scheme which was set up after a British official inadvertently leaked their data. The existence of the leak and relocations was kept secret after the Government obtained a super-injunction stopping it from becoming public. The asylum seeker arrived in the UK in August 2012 and claimed asylum the following month. An appeal by a first-tier immigration tribunal was rejected on the basis that he was found to 'lack credibility and to have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.' He remained in the UK and in July 2021 appealed, claiming he feared persecution upon return to Iran on account of his Baluch ethnicity, his Sunni Muslim faith, and the fact that he had left Iran illegally. The man claimed his brother's smuggling activities would also place him at risk if returned and that his poor mental health would prevent him from reintegrating in Iran, in breach of his article three rights to protection from persecution under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Then, in a witness statement submitted in advance of his appeal hearing, he provided an alternative basis for claiming asylum – that he was a national of Afghanistan, where he lived until the age of 17. He claimed he left Afghanistan because of the problems his family faced with the Taliban. He further indicated that his father, brother, and sister remain residents in Afghanistan. 'He stated that, upon claiming asylum in the UK, he falsely asserted Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan. He now claims that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face ill-treatment at the hands of the Taliban,' the court was told. 'He also maintains that his mental health issues would constitute very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Afghanistan and that his removal would therefore amount to a breach of Article 8 [rights to a family life] under the ECHR.' 'His credibility was central' The Home Office maintained that, given he had previously advanced a claim based on Iranian nationality, his credibility was now 'significantly undermined'. Officials also said there was 'no substantive evidence' to establish his Afghan nationality, except for a biometric identity card allegedly belonging to his cousin, 'for which no supporting evidence of a familial relationship was provided'. But after he failed to turn up for the hearing, an upper immigration tribunal judge ruled that his case should be reheard by a first-tier tribunal. This was because his 'credibility was central to the determination of the claim, thereby rendering his oral evidence of critical importance', the court ruled. 'Furthermore, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the [asylum seeker's] documented mental health difficulties, which required careful consideration in the context of procedural fairness. 'The Judge's reasoning fails to reflect adequate engagement with these issues, or with the question of whether the appeal could be fairly and justly determined in the [asylum seeker's] absence.'
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Sport
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Boxing fans claim Manny Pacquiao was 'ROBBED' after 46-year-old's comeback fight against Mario Barrio ends in draw
Boxing fans were left furious on Saturday night after Manny Pacquiao 's return to the ring at age 46 ended in a draw. Pacquiao put forth a valiant effort against the much younger Mario Barrios in the WBC welterweight title fight, but ultimately was unable to regain the belt as the bout was scored 115-113 (in favor of Barrios), 114-114 and 114-114. And fans were livid at the judges' decision to keep the belt with Barrios. 'Manny Pacquiao won that fight with ease. These judges are hot garbage,' one wrote on X. 'Pacquiao was robbed.. a draw give me a break!,' another said. And a third chimed in: 'NAH DRAW???? PACQUIAO WON THAT
