Connect with us

World News

Ukraine initiates ICJ proceedings against Russia – JURIST

Published

on

Ukraine launched proceedings against Russia on Saturday before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in light of Russia’s ongoing attack on Ukraine. According to Ukraine, the case concerns “a dispute. . . Concerning the Interpretation, Application and Enforcement of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Ukraine contends that Russia falsely claimed that acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces of Ukraine. He alleged that based on these false claims, Russia recognized the independence of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions and launched a “special military operation” against Ukraine. President Putin has also claimed that NATO countries are supporting far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Supposedly, the operation is intended to pursue the “denazification” of Ukraine, which is currently under a Jewish president. Ukraine has emphatically denied the occurrence of any such genocide and has submitted the ICJ request “to establish that Russia has no legal basis to take action in and against Ukraine in order to prevent and punish any alleged genocide.” Ukraine also accused Russia. of “planning acts of genocide in Ukraine” and “intentionally killing and inflicting serious injury on members of the Ukrainian nationality.” This, according to Ukraine, makes Russia guilty under Article II of the Genocide Convention, which defines the genocide as acts committed with “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” On request, Ukraine has asked the ICJ to indicate interim measures “in order to avoid irreparable harm to the rights of Ukraine and its people and prevent the aggravation or prolongation of the dispute between the parties under the Genocide Convention.” According to Article 41 of the ICJ Statute (Statute) , in appropriate circumstances, the court has the power to indicate the interim measures necessary to preserve the rights of one of the parties. The measures must be notified to the parties and to the UN Security Council. Article 74 of the ICJ Rules establishes that a request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases. In the LaGrand case, an ICJ dispute between Germany and the US statute is binding on the parties. Once such measures are indicated, an ad hoc committee, made up of three judges, assists the court in monitoring their implementation. In previous instances of the ICJ’s application of the Genocide Convention, interim measures have included requiring members to take all measures to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide and to refrain from any act of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide. or complicity in genocide.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Indian court keeps journalist in police custody over tweet – JURIST

Published

on

The Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday ordered journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair to be held in police custody for four days. Zubair was arrested on Monday for the offenses of hurting religious sentiments and inciting enmity under Sections 153 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2018, Zubair posted a tweet showing a hotel whose name he changed from “Honeymoon Hotel” to “Hanuman Hotel”. Hanuman is a Hindu god. Delhi police arrested him based on a complaint about that tweet, which alleged that Zubair tweeted a “questionable image for the purpose of deliberately insulting the god of a particular religion.” accused for posting the tweet in question will be retrieved at the behest of the accused Mohammed Zubair from his residence in Bangalore, that the accused has not cooperated and (with) the disclosure statement recorded, four days PC (police custody) preventive detention of the accused will be concedes as the accused will be taken to Bangalore. Zubair’s arrest has been condemned by international organizations and national news organizations, including United Nations chief Antonio Guterres, Amnesty International, the Press Club of India and other media outlets.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022