Actually

Another ICJ hearing is starting now in regards to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. This is the result of a UNGA resolution from 2022 for the ICJ to give a nonbinding opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation from 1967 to present day.

This is not related to South Africa's case

Pictured are who will be presenting arguments, Israel will not be taking part

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears arguments from 52 countries and three international organisations this week – the largest number of parties to participate in any single World Court case.

The 15-judge panel is asked to review Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation” as well as policies “aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”.

The six-day hearings are based on a request by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for a nonbinding advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel is not taking part in this week’s oral arguments and reacted angrily to the 2022 UNGA request of the ICJ with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it “despicable” and “disgraceful”.

All damage caused to the Palestinian population as a result of policies and practices illegal under international law must be the object of restitution and, failing that, compensation.

Israel must be required to prosecute people responsible for human rights violations.

Other states have an obligation not to recognise any form of illegal annexation of territories. France will never recognise the illegal annexation of territories in the West Bank.

From an economic standpoint, as requested by the UN all states must make a separation between the Israeli territories and the territories occupied since 1967 and distinguish products depending on that origin.

I realize "the literal second day of the tournament" is a bit early to start thinking about next season but my brain knows no power quite like being bored at work so out of curiosity, which would you prefer if I did a future Discworld bracket?

Feel free to elaborate on your answer. I'll leave this up for a week for newcomers to weigh in (and if I come up with more ideas I'll add them in the comments, so check those if you're just getting here, I left an option for you)

Sliding into the long weekend with too many WIPs competing for brainspace! Help!

*The results of this poll are nonbinding but highly influential and motivational

Okay guys, I need your help. Going to make a Tumblr dedicated to Giles, but also featuring Harry and my fosters. I'm trying to pick a name, and I'm torn. So decide for me:

This poll is entirely nonbinding but I will be influenced by the results :p

Okay, so in my Hellish Encounters series I’ve established an OC named Lupé who is one of Angel’s coworkers.

I have managed to establish absolutely nothing about what he looks like lol (other than that he does have feet and arms)

I should probably do that before he starts showing up more, cuz he’s gonna.

There is an (as far as I’ve been able to look up) unnamed background demon in one episode who I’m considering just deciding is Lupé

So….

If you vote for “fully new” feel free to suggest animal/object/aesthetic themes for him.

The results of this poll are nonbinding lol

I finished the first draft of the Regency au, and before I start on the next draft I'd like some input about whether the Jellicle Regency should be explicitly cat people or open to interpretation or what

Expect a diplomatic sandstorm when world leaders and their ministers meet in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) in late November and early December for the next global climate summit. The gathering—known as the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28)—could prove the most contentious round of climate talks in almost a decade and also test the effectiveness of the 2015 Paris Agreement in tackling the biggest climate challenges.

The UAE, which will preside over the negotiations, has signaled its intention to use COP28 to craft major outcomes on at least two extremely challenging geopolitical climate issues: establishing new global goals for greening the energy economy and clarifying the financial assistance that rich nations should provide poorer nations to facilitate and incentivize climate action. Whether COP28 will be remembered for breakthroughs in these areas is difficult to predict.

As over 75 percent of global climate pollution comes from burning fossil fuels—which release carbon dioxide and methane, the two largest climate pollutants—one might expect that over the past three decades of global climate negotiations the international community would have reached some agreement on their future use. Not so. For decades, nations have disagreed vigorously about how and when to reduce fossil fuel emissions—and even whether ending reliance on coal, oil, and gas is necessary.

Entering COP28, the European Union, United States, several other developed nations, and many small island states (which are extremely vulnerable to severe storms and sea levels rising) are calling for a rapid transition to renewable energy. They want COP28 to establish nonbinding dates for ending the “unabated” use of fossil fuels—consumption of these fuels without simultaneously capturing, storing, and/or repurposing climate pollution. That’s a big deal, because today, virtually all emissions from oil, gas, and coal are unabated and abatement technologies are not yet affordable or globally scalable. Many of these nations are also now proposing that states pledge to end the construction of new coal plants immediately and establish a date for shuttering existing ones. Some developing nations, including African states, argue that new fossil fuel goals should not apply initially to the least-developed nations, who they maintain need access to all energy sources to escape poverty. Still other countries, including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, oppose setting specific dates for phasing out fossil fuels at this time, arguing that doing so would unfairly single out one source of climate pollution while ignoring others, and be contrary to the spirit of the Paris Agreement, which allows every nation to decide for itself what climate technologies and policies to pursue.

Although some nations have long called for ending fossil fuel use, ignoring the fossil fuel elephant in the room will be difficult at COP28. The Paris Agreement requires that the international community assess every five years, starting in 2023, the adequacy of global climate action. The results of this year’s assessment, known as the “global stocktake,” were a foregone conclusion—scientists agree that the world is not doing enough to avoid potentially unmanageable and catastrophic climate change. What remains unclear—and politically interesting—is what, if anything, world leaders and their ministers will do in response. Some argue that failing to come up with a meaningful plan to raise climate ambition at COP28 could raise questions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Paris Agreement. As phasing down global use of fossil fuels would do more than anything else to help close the gap between what science requires and what nations have done thus far, COP28 seems likely to provide the first real global debate about the future of fossil fuels.

Earlier this fall, Western nations failed to secure the support of the full G-20 for phasing out unabated fossil fuels, with Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia actively opposing. China—currently the world’s largest climate polluter—seems immovable on this point. When Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden met in San Francisco in mid-November, the bilateral statement their climate envoys produced had no new quantitative targets or deadlines on fossil fuel consumption. The United States and China did agree the world should triple global annual investments in renewable energy by 2030. While that is necessary, it will not be sufficient to decarbonize the energy economy. With China dug in, it’s safe to predict that COP28 probably will not produce a formal global consensus on dates for phasing down unabated fossil fuels in general or even coal specifically.

While a global consensus may prove elusive, COP28 could still deliver progress on this issue. The United States and EU appear more willing than ever to shine a spotlight on China’s failure to rein in its growing fossil fuel use, particularly its construction of roughly two new coal plants per week. At COP28, the Western allies are trying to rally a broad coalition of “high ambition” nations, made up of developed and developing nations willing to commit to blocking construction of new coal plants and retiring existing ones. It’s possible that the trans-Atlantic allies will recruit dozens or even one hundred nations to join the voluntary plurilateral fossil fuel pledge, particularly if accommodations are made for the least developed nations. Should this occur, China’s refusal to be part of the group will be noticed and covered by the global media. That’s significant, because until now China has managed to avoid taking the blame for the slow pace of global climate diplomacy.

The second storm in Dubai could be about money. Traditionally, developed nations have provided funds to developing nations to both help them adapt to climate change and mitigate increases in climate pollution. During COP28, nations are expected to argue over at least three issues relating to this international climate finance.

The first dispute will be over the adequacy of total climate funding. In 2009, donor countries agreed to mobilize by 2020 $100 billion a year to support climate action in the developing world. While international climate finance has more than doubled and some say tripled over this decade and a half, donor nations failed to reach the $100 billion mark until this year, although the official accounting for 2023 may not be known until 2025. Thanks to recent analysis by the International Energy Agency and others, we now know that greening the energy economy will require mobilizing an additional $2.7 trillion annually from public and private sources. It’s difficult to know what share of that total needs to come from public coffers, but most experts agree that $100 billion in public funding will not suffice to decarbonize the developing world; more than double that may be required over the next decade, although there’s no global consensus on the number at this time. Most likely, COP28 will kick the can down the road on a major new funding pledge, such as by agreeing that nations should agree on a new funding target in 2024 or 2025.

The second dispute over money will center on whether developed nations should do a better job of delivering climate aid to the least-developed nations, particularly for climate adaptation and resilience. Today, only a tiny fraction of international climate finance goes to the poorest nations—3.7 percent by some estimates. Rapidly developing emerging economies gobble up the lion’s share. Over the past decade, in addition, only 23 percent of international climate finance funds adaptation and resilience programs instead of emissions mitigation. This is because reducing climate pollution helps people in donor countries, too, whereas most adaptation funding primarily benefits local communities in poor nations. Plus, reducing emissions means less climate change and less need for adaptation. With climate change driving international migration from Africa and elsewhere, however, developed nations are starting to understand the need for more adaptation and resilience funding. But it’s not at all clear that nations are ready to agree at COP28 on how to rebalance climate aid and direct a larger share to the poorest nations.

The third international climate finance controversy at COP28 will relate to operationalizing the new “loss and damage” fund nations agreed in 2022 to create. Unlike traditional climate aid, the loss and damage fund is meant to provide financial assistance to developing nations that are already suffering from adverse climate impacts, such as more severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, and sea level rise. For the past several months, nations have argued over how much money should go into the fund, how the fund should be capitalized, who should decide how funds are spent, and where the funds should sit to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Earlier this month, a likely compromise emerged. If nations at COP28 accept the proposed deal, contributions to the new fund will be voluntary and the fund will be managed provisionally by the World Bank, but developing nations will have a major role in determining how funds are spent. Loss and damage negotiations at COP28, therefore, are likely to center on the biggest issue—whether donor nations should commit to capitalize the fund at a particular quantitative level. Developing nations want that clarity and accountability; developed countries would prefer to keep things vague.

The United States may prove to be the largest obstacle to reaching agreement on all three of these international climate finance issues. The Biden administration presumably would prefer to delay decisions on big new foreign aid programs until after the U.S. presidential election in November 2024, since Republicans would surely use any new pledges against the president in the general election. Climate aid, like all foreign aid, is unpopular with voters and was the reason Donald Trump gave for pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement. In addition, at COP28, the Biden administration will likely worry about whether the United States could deliver on any new climate finance pledge. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is highly unlikely to increase climate aid. Unfortunately for the president and climate envoy John Kerry, the world is aware of this and increasingly frustrated with America’s perceived inability to lead on climate finance. Developing nations could stage a walkout during the talks. Many climate advocates will protest what they will describe as U.S. or Western obstruction.

Together, the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, account for 45 percent of global energy emissions. As the preceding analysis demonstrates, these nations play a major role in shaping the speed of global climate action and the outcomes at climate talks. At COP28, look for both nations to be somewhat on the defensive, despite the recent U.S.-China statement on enhancing climate cooperation.

China should be doing more to wean itself off of coal, and its failure to commit to doing so—assuming China stands firm—will erode its claim to global leadership. The United States is now the world’s leading producer of oil and gas, and lacks a broad societal consensus to wind down those industries, despite positions taken by president Biden and John Kerry. The United States, in addition, should be doing more to mobilize funds for climate action in the developed world. Growing global awareness that the United States lacks political will on climate finance is undermining confidence in U.S. leadership once more, despite Biden’s numerous domestic climate policy victories. Each country is playing for global hearts and minds. Whereas China paints itself as fighting for developing countries to secure additional climate finance from the United States and other donor nations, in the Biden administration the United States positions itself as leading the charge to create a coherent global response to the global stocktake, including by securing more action from China. This year’s climate summit may provide an indication of which power has the upper hand on climate geopolitics.

RESULTS: Nevada and USVI Caucuses

The road to Milwaukee's Republican National Convention in July runs through Nevada and the U.S. Virgin Islands this week, with the Silver State splitting its contests between a nonbinding primary on Tuesday and official caucuses on Thursday along with the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

As Townhall reported following the Nevada Primary, "None of These Candidates" ran away with the primary contest earlier this week with more than 60 percent of the vote. Former Ambassador Nikki Haley, on the other hand, drew roughly 30 percent. Trump was not on the primary ballot, instead appearing on Thursday night's caucus ballots and looking to clinch the 26 delegates up for grabs. The only other candidate competing in the caucuses is Ryan Binkley, and no write-in votes are allowed. Nevada allocates its delegates proportionally, with a 4.3 percent threshold meaning Trump is likely to clinch the full slate unless Binkley surpasses that threshold. 

In Nevada, voters will participate in their in-person caucuses from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. local time according to the state Republican Party, and results are expected to begin coming in during the 10:00 p.m. ET hour. Live results will be updated on the map below as precinct totals are reported.

While there are fewer convention delegates — just four — up for grabs in the U.S. Virgin Islands' territorial caucuses Thursday evening, the Trump and Haley campaigns have been actively gunning for support. The USVI caucuses use ranked-choice voting, and all its delegates are awarded to the candidate who ends up securing a simple majority of the vote.

Recommended

Due to its status as a U.S. territory, USVI residents don't get a vote in the general election in November, making the caucuses the only chance for the them to make their voices heard in the selection of the next president. 

Republicans in the U.S. Virgin Islands will have their choice between Trump and Haley, but since-suspended candidates Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Perry Johnson, and Vivek Ramaswamy will still be on the ballot, though quickly eliminated in the ranked-choice process. 

Live results will be updated below as totals are reported in, beginning around 7:00 p.m. ET.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Antonio Velardo shares: U.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire, Countering U.S. Veto by Farnaz Fassihi

By Farnaz Fassihi About three-quarters of the body’s members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution. The result underscored the isolation of Israel and the United States. Published: December 12, 2023 at 06:36PM from NYT World https://ift.tt/slmOPiZ via IFTTT

View On WordPress

U.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire, Countering U.S. Veto

About three-quarters of the body’s members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution. The result underscored the isolation of Israel and the United States. source https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/un-general-assembly-israel-cease-fire.html

View On WordPress

Florida’s Non-Adversarial Alternative Property Dispute Resolution

Under Florida law, homeowner’s and commercial property policies give insured parties certain rights of dispute when they make a claim. One pathway introduced by the Florida state legislature in 2023 involves non-adversarial alternative dispute resolution.

A majority of commercial and residential insurance policies obligate policyholders to engage in an adversarial appraisal process before litigation begins, which can be costly and time-consuming. The new statute provides an informal and non-threatening forum that encourages a mediated claims settlement, free from the type of adversarial footing that can be counterproductive to timely resolution.

The impetus behind this legislation advocating for arbitration stems from the escalating challenges in the Florida homeowner's insurance market. With soaring insurance rates, carrier failures, and a surge in litigation over claims, obtaining necessary reinsurance has become a formidable challenge for numerous homeowners. In response, Governor DeSantis arranged a special legislative session in late 2022 that resulted in the quick bilateral passage of the complex 61-page law by both legislative houses. Signed on December 16, 2022, into law, the new statute became effective on the first of the new year.

Under the statute, policyholders (also known as first-party claimants) and insurers, as well as third-party assignees of policy benefits, have the right to request a non-adversarial alternative dispute resolution process. It should be noted that the insurer is not required to participate in mediation that a third party requests. Mediation may also be utilized by litigants referred by a county court or circuit court.

While mediation is nonbinding, the resulting written settlement may be binding. After a settlement is proposed, the policyholder has three business days in which to decide whether to rescind the settlement (this is only allowed if no money has yet been disbursed to the policyholder as a result of the mediation). In cases where the settlement agreement isn’t rescinded, it’s considered binding and serves to release all specified claims that were presented within the context of the mediation.

An important aspect of mediation is that it reduces expenses compared to litigation. The statute requires that the costs of mediation must be kept at a reasonable level, with the insurer responsible for the full range of expenses associated with conducting mediation conferences. There are exceptions to this. For instance, if the policyholder fails to make a promised conference appearance, the policyholder must pay the costs of the rescheduled conference before it can proceed. On the other hand, if the insurer does not appear at a mediation conference (and the cause was not compelling) the insurer is responsible for covering expenses that the policyholder incurred in attending.

The insurer is required to notify the policyholder of their right to take part in the mediation program, both at the time of a policy’s issuance and renewal, and when the policyholder files a first-party claim. Claims are only eligible for mediation after the insurer has fulfilled obligations set out in s. 627.70131(7) of reviewing and acknowledging receipt of communications regarding the claim. Within seven days after receipt of proof-of-loss statements, the insurer must start an investigation of the claim. This involves assigning a licensed adjuster (in cases of physical property inspection) and conducting said physical property inspection within 30 days of proof-of-loss statement receipt. Once the adjuster has delivered a detailed estimate of the loss amount, the insurer must send a copy to the policyholder within a week and mediation may proceed.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly approved a nonbinding resolution Friday calling for a “humanitarian truce” in Gaza leading to a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers, the first United Nations response to the war.

The 193-member world body adopted the resolution by a vote of 120-14 with 45 abstentions after rejecting a Canadian amendment backed by the United States. It would have unequivocally condemned the Oct. 7 “terrorist attacks” by Hamas and demanded the immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas, which is not mentioned in the Arab-drafted resolution.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador, called the General Assembly “more courageous, more principled” than the divided U.N. Security Council, which failed in four attempts during the past two weeks to reach agreement on a resolution. Two were vetoed and two failed to get the minimum nine “yes” votes required for approval.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan called it “a day that will go down in infamy,” saying after the vote: “Israel will not stop the operation until Hamas terror capabilities are destroyed and our hostages are returned. … And the only way to destroy Hamas is root them out of their tunnels and subterranean city of terror.”

Frustrated Arab nations went to the General Assembly, where there are no vetoes — just as Ukraine did after Russia’s February 2022 invasion because of Moscow’s Security Council veto power — to press for a U.N. response. And the United Arab Emirates Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh, the Arab representative on the Security Council, expressed delight at the result.

“120 votes in this kind of geopolitical environment is a very, very high signal of the support for international law, for proportionate use of force, and it is a rejection of the status quo that is currently happening on the ground,” she said.

The 14 countries that voted against the resolution include Israel and its closest ally, the United States, five Pacific island nations and four European countries — Austria, Croatia, Czechia and Hungary, all European Union members. Eight EU members voted in favor.

France’s U.N. Ambassador Nicolas De Riviere said his country supported the resolution “because nothing could justify the suffering of civilians,” and he urged collective efforts to establish a humanitarian truce.

Mansour said the European votes indicate they can be “very helpful” in pursuing a Security Council resolution “or in maximizing pressure in Israel to stop this war.”

While the surprise Hamas attacks killed some 1,400 Israelis, more than 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The escalating death toll and destruction in Gaza heightened international support for “humanitarian truces” to get desperately needed food, water, medicine and fuel to the 2.3 million people in Gaza.

Unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but the UAE’s Nusseibeh told reporters “they carry incredible weight and moral authority.”

She said the 10 elected Security Council members, who serve two-year terms, will take the “moral authority” from the General Assembly and try to break the gridlock on a council resolution.

-The votes came part way through a list of 113 speakers at an emergency special session of the General Assembly on Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territories.

Jordan’s U.N. Ambassador Mahmoud Hmoud, speaking on behalf of the U.N.’s 22-nation Arab group, called for action on the resolution because of the urgency of the escalating situation on the ground.

Before the vote, Hmoud urged defeat of the Canadian amendment, saying “Israel is responsible for the atrocities that are being committed now, and that will be committed in the ground invasion of Gaza.”

Canada’s U.N. Ambassador Robert Rae countered that the resolution appears to forget that the events of Oct. 7 happened. The amendment would condemn Hamas, “which is responsible for one of the worst terrorist attacks in history,” he said.

Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram drew loud applause when he said the Arab-drafted resolution deliberately didn’t condemn or mention Israel or name any other party. “If Canada was really equitable,” Akram said, “it would agree either to name everybody — both sides who are guilty of having committed crimes — or it would not name either as we chose.”

The vote on the Canadian amendment was 88-55 with 23 abstentions, but it failed to get a two-thirds majority of those voting for or against — abstentions didn’t count. In the vote on the entire resolution that followed, Canada abstained.

The assembly’s emergency special session, which began Wednesday, continued Friday morning with U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield echoing Israel’s Erdan in calling the resolution “outrageous” for never mentioning Hamas and saying it is “detrimental” to the vision of a two-state solution.

She called it “a perilous moment for Israelis and Palestinians,” stressing that there is no justification for Hamas “terror,” that Palestinians are being used as human shields and that “the lives of innocent Palestinians must be protected.”

Oman, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, condemned Israel’s “siege” of Gaza, starvation of its population and collective punishment of Palestinians. But it said the Palestinians won’t be deterred from demanding their “legitimate inalienable rights, chief among them the right to self- determination and the right to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

In addition to calling for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities,” the resolution adopted Friday demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law requiring protection of civilians and the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure critical for their survival.

The resolution demands that essential supplies be allowed into the Gaza Strip and humanitarian workers have sustained access. And it calls on Israel to rescind its order for Gazans to evacuate the north and move to the south and “firmly rejects any attempts at the forced transfer of the Palestinian civilian population.”

The resolution also stresses the need “to urgently establish a mechanism to ensure the protection of the Palestinian civilian population.”

And it “emphasizes the importance of preventing further destabilization and escalation of violence in the region” and calls on all parties to exercise “maximum restraint” and on all those with influence to press them “to work toward this objective.”