best bet
best bet
Ally Lewber Hosted Red Carpet Event 1 Day After Boyfriend James Kennedy’s Domestic Violence Arrest
The Wanted star Max George has said he will be spending Christmas in hospital after doctors discovered “some issues” with his heart. The singer, 36, provided the health update in an Instagram post alongside a photo of him giving a thumbs up while lying in a hospital bed. The Bolton School old boy revealed he is awaiting more tests to determine the extent of the issues and what surgery he may need, but said he is expecting it to be a “difficult few weeks/months”. He wrote: “Hey everyone, yesterday I felt really unwell and was taken in to hospital. Unfortunately after some tests they’ve found that I have some issues with my heart. “I have a lot more tests to determine the extent of the problems and what surgery I will need to get me back on my feet. “It’s gonna be a difficult few weeks/months... and Christmas in a hospital bed wasn’t exactly what I had planned.” The singer said he is “surrounded with love and support” from his “wonderful” partner, actress Maisie Smith, as well as his family and friends. He added: “Although this is a huge shock and no doubt a set back, it’s something I’ll take on with all I’ve got. “I count myself very lucky that this was caught when it was.” Friends and famous faces were among those to offer their support including his bandmate Siva Kaneswaran who said: “Here for you brother. Rest up and get well soon.” JLS stars JB Gill and Marvin Humes also commented. Gill wrote: “God bless you bro, wishing you better soon. Sending lots of love”, while Humes added: “Sorry to hear you’re not well geezer, you’re strong and will fight through. Big love mate.” George rose to fame in the 2010s with The Wanted, who had a number of hit songs including All Time Low and Heart Vacancy. His bandmate Tom Parker died in 2022 at the age of 33 after being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. George, who helped carry Parker’s coffin at his funeral alongside fellow bandmates Kaneswaran, Jay McGuiness and Nathan Sykes, previously said on This Morning that he continued to message his late bandmate following his death as it brought him “a bit of comfort”. He also appeared in the US musical series Glee as Clint and in his band’s reality series The Wanted Life. Over the years, he has competed in a number of competition series including Strictly Come Dancing in 2020, Bear Grylls: Mission Survive and Richard Osman’s House of Games. Earlier this year he made his stage debut in the theatrical adaption of a BBC TV show about a lottery syndicate by Kay Mellor titled The Syndicate. George and soap actress Smith first met when they both competed on Strictly Come Dancing, but have previously said that romantic sparks only began to fly in 2022.Fulham suffer Reiss Nelson injury blow as Marco Silva reveals recovery timeline
ABILENE, Texas (AP) — Sam Hicks scored on a 53-yard run in the fourth quarter and finished with 171 yards on the ground to lead Abilene Christian to a 24-0 victory over Northern Arizona on Saturday in the first round of the FCS playoffs. The Wildcats (9-4), ranked No. 15 in the FCS coaches poll and seeded 15th, qualified for the playoffs for the first time and will travel to play No. 2 seed and nine-time champion North Dakota State (10-2) on Saturday at the Fargo Dome. The Bison had a first-round bye. Abilene Christian grabbed a 7-0 lead on its second possession when Carson Haggard connected with Trey Cleveland for a 37-yard touchdown that capped a 10-play 97-yard drive. Northern Arizona (8-5), ranked 17th but unseeded for the playoffs after winning five straight to get in, picked off Haggard on the Wildcats’ next two possessions but could not turn them into points. NAU went for it on fourth-and-goal at the 1-yard line with 9:30 left before halftime, but Jordan Mukes tackled Ty Pennington for a 4-yard loss. That led to a 46-yard field goal by Ritse Vaes and a 10-0 lead at halftime. The score remained the same until Hicks’ big run with 10:16 left to play. Haggard passed 6 yards to Blayne Taylor for the final score with 2:16 to go. Haggard completed 23 of 29 passes for 244 yards with three interceptions. Abilene Christian’s defense allowed at least 20 points in every game during the regular season and yielded at least 30 six times. The Wildcats lost their season opener to FBS member Texas Tech 52-51 in overtime. Abilene Christian’s last shutout came in a 56-0 victory over Lamar on Sept. 25, 2021. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up . AP college football: and
NEW YORK , Dec. 12, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Lument Finance Trust, Inc. (NYSE: LFT ) ("LFT" or the "Company") announced the declaration of a cash dividend of $0.08 per share of common stock with respect to the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company also announced the declaration of a one-time special cash dividend of $0.09 per share of common stock due to real estate investment trust tax considerations. These dividends are payable on January 15, 2025 , to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on December 31, 2024 . The Company also announced the declaration of a cash dividend of $0.4921875 per share of 7.875% Cumulative Redeemable Series A Preferred Stock. The dividend is payable on January 15, 2025 to preferred stockholders of record as of the close of business January 2, 2025 . About LFT LFT is a Maryland corporation focused on investing in, financing and managing a portfolio of commercial real estate debt investments. The Company primarily invests in transitional floating rate commercial mortgage loans with an emphasis on middle-market multi-family assets. LFT is externally managed and advised by Lument Investment Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Additional Information and Where to Find It Investors, security holders and other interested persons may find additional information regarding the Company at the SEC's Internet site at http://www.sec.gov/ or the Company website www.lumentfinancetrust.com or by directing requests to: Lument Finance Trust, 230 Park Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10169, Attention: Investor Relations. Forward Looking Statements Certain statements included in this press release constitute forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe harbor contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. You can identify forward-looking statements by use of words such as "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "estimate," "plan," "continue," "intend," "should," "may," "will," "seek," "would," "could," or similar expressions or other comparable terms, or by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. Forward-looking statements are based on the Company's beliefs, assumptions and expectations of its future performance, taking into account all information currently available to the Company on the date of this press release or the date on which such statements are first made. Actual results may differ from expectations, estimates and projections. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements in this press release and should consider carefully the factors described in Part I, Item IA "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 , which is available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov , and in other current or periodic filings with the SEC, when evaluating these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond the Company's control. Except as required by applicable law, the Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lument-finance-trust-inc-declares-quarterly-cash-dividends-for-its-common-and-preferred-stock-and-announces-special-cash-dividend-distribution-302330846.html SOURCE Lument Finance TrustA melee broke out at midfield of Ohio Stadium after Michigan upset No. 2 Ohio State 13-10 on Saturday. After the Wolverines' fourth straight win in the series, players converged at the block "O" to plant its flag. The Ohio State players were in the south end zone singing their alma mater in front of the student section. When the Buckeyes saw the Wolverines' flag, they rushed toward the 50-yard line. Social media posts showed Michigan offensive lineman Raheem Anderson carrying the flag on a long pole to midfield, where the Wolverines were met by dozens of Ohio State players and fights broke out. Buckeyes defensive end Jack Sawyer was seen ripping the flag off the pole and taking the flag as he scuffled with several people trying to recover the flag. A statement from the Ohio State Police Department read: "Following the game, officers from multiple law enforcement agencies assisted in breaking up an on-field altercation. During the scuffle, multiple officers representing Ohio and Michigan deployed pepper spray. OSUPD is the lead agency for games and will continue to investigate." Michigan running back Kalel Mullings on FOX said: "For such a great game, you hate to see stuff like that after the game. It's bad for the sport, bad for college football. At the end of the day, some people got to learn how to lose, man. "You can't be fighting and stuff just because you lost the game. We had 60 minutes and four quarters to do all that fighting. Now people want to talk and fight. That's wrong. It's bad for the game. Classless, in my opinion. People got to be better." Once order was restored, officers cordoned the 50-yard line, using bicycles as barriers. Ohio State coach Ryan Day in his postgame press conference said he wasn't sure what happened. "I don't know all the details of it. But I know that these guys are looking to put a flag on our field and our guys weren't going to let that happen," he said. "I'll find out exactly what happened, but this is our field and certainly we're embarrassed at the fact we lost the game, but there's some prideful guys on our team that weren't just going to let that happen." The Big Ten has not yet released a statement on the incident. --Field Level Media
While Mira's oldest son, Johnny, recently streamed Goodfellas for the first time, one of Paul's Christmas movies used to be a classic watch for the family While 's filmography is robust and varied, there's one holiday classic that holds a special place in the hearts of his children and grandchildren. In a recent interview with PEOPLE, the late actor's daughter, , reveals the Paul film she and her with husband always gravitate to around the holidays. "One that we used to watch with them — we haven't watched it in a few years, since he passed, I don't think — but my kids used to love his movie, , in which he plays Santa Claus," Sorvino, 57, says. "They love that movie and we love to watch grandpa as Santa." In fact, the children's affinity for the film led to the actress ultimately taking on the role of Mrs. Claus in a different movie. "Grandpa has played Santa and Mira has played Mrs. Claus," says Backus. Related: "I realized my kids couldn't watch any of my movies because they were all rated R," the star says. "And so I knew how much they loved . And when I got offered this finding Mrs. Claus [in 2012's ], which was really clever and cute, I went for it so I'd have something that I would make that they could watch." As her children have gotten older, the star says they're discovering their grandfather's more adult films, including the iconic . "So our son, Johnny, who's at the University of Michigan, watched for the first time two weeks ago with a couple of his teammates," says Backus. "And he was like, 'I can't believe that's my grandpa.' . . . And yeah, that was pretty cool." Cinematic/Alamy Stock Photo Related: Paul at age 83. The actor is best known for his role in , in which he played Paulie Cicero, and his role as NYPD Sergeant Phil Cerreta on the television seriesPittsburgh Steelers tight end Pat Freiermuth received high praise from none other than Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, arguably the greatest tight end ever to play the game. Kelce believes Freiermuth is highly underrated and doesn’t get the flowers that he deserves. “Pat is actually one of my favorite tight ends to watch, man,” Kelce said on the New Hights podcast . “He’s savvy in his route running. He is very quarterback friendly, which he knows angles coming out to where he knows he can get a guaranteed catch. And quarterbacks love it when you come out of breaks at certain angles.” In the last three games, Pat Freiermuth has 13 receptions for 175 yards and two touchdowns. Freiermuth’s emergence in Arthur Smith’s tight end-friendly offense is starting to come to light. Russell Wilson connected to Freiermuth on a 20-yard touchdown down the seam in Sunday’s 27-14 win over the Cleveland Browns. Let Russ cook!! This TD pass to Freiermuth is a dart : #CLEvsPIT on CBS/Paramount+ : https://t.co/waVpO909ge pic.twitter.com/f1pIGabeAS “He does a great job of feeling voids like that and feeling how he needs to get in and outta breaks. And then on top of that, he’s just a tough football player, man,” Kelce said. “I think he embodies the Steeler kind of way to play, which is like, it’s that Steel Curtain, that toughness that you gotta play with, man. He’s willing to stick his face in the fan and do whatever he needs to do for his team.” The fourth-year tight end out of Penn State has been solid this season, but his numbers have drastically increased over the last three games. “I’m a big believer in the football gods,” Freiermuth said after his breakout game against the Bengals. “I was just doing the gritty work. Trying to impact the game as much as I can. I knew it was gonna come. I knew we have the big games late in the year and they are gonna count on my number.” Freiermuth will play against Kelce and the Chiefs on Christmas Day. This article first appeared on Steelers Now and was syndicated with permission.
The County of Haliburton is aiming to make play more accessible to all residents and park visitors with the installation of communication boards in county parks. The county announced on Tuesday (December 10) that it has installed the first augmentative and alternative communication (ACC) boards at Head Lake Park and at Rotary Beach Park in Haliburton. The move targets ensuring that people of all abilities can enjoy meaningful communication and social interaction together, a media release from the county noted. Haliburton County warden Liz Danielsen told kawarthaNOW the new boards are a feature that have been discussed and desired for a few years, and an initiative that will benefit residents and others who use the parks. “The newly created communication board will truly enhance accessibility for those with speech and reading disabilities and are an exciting addition to our community,” Danielsen said. “The idea was raised during brainstorming discussions by the county’s accessibility committee several years by a member and have finally come to fruition,” she said about the impetus for the project. The communication boards are strategically placed in the playgrounds and feature a range of picture communication symbols — images and words — that allow people to communicate their needs, wants and ideas, or to simply play and engage in creative games. In addition to providing people of all abilities with more opportunities in county parks, the boards are also a tool aimed at promoting inclusion and raising awareness and education of complex communication needs, as well as augmentative and alternative communication, the county noted. “Communication boards highlight the importance of accessibility and inclusion in our county for all residents, including people who communicate in a variety of ways,” Danielsen, who is also mayor of Algonquin Highlands, stated. Haliburton company MacArt Studios created the layout and production of Haliburton County’s playground communication board in collaboration with municipal staff, and with feedback from area residents, the county’s joint accessibility committee, speech language pathologists and occupational therapists, along with caregivers, organizations and agencies that support people with communication challenges. The first county-funded communication board was installed in the fall in Head Lake Park. Then, through federal and provincial funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, a second board was installed by the Municipality of Dysart et al at Rotary Beach Park. “This project reflects our ongoing dedication to accessibility and community-building and I am proud to see it come to life,” said Walt McKechnie, deputy mayor of Dysart et al, and member of the County of Haliburton joint accessibility committee. The joint accessibility committee plans to expand the initiative to additional playgrounds across the county in 2025, “continuing its commitment to working toward a barrier-free community where all people have equal opportunity to live, visit, raise a family, work, and retire.” For more information about the county’s joint accessibility committee communication board project, visit .Ontario mulls U.S. booze ban as Trump brushes off Ford's threat to cut electricity OTTAWA — Incoming U.S. president Donald Trump is brushing off Ontario's threat to restrict electricity exports in retaliation for sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods, as the province floats the idea of effectively barring sales of American alcohol. Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press Dec 12, 2024 2:28 PM Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks to members of the media at Queen's Park Legislature in Toronto on Thursday December 12, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young OTTAWA — Incoming U.S. president Donald Trump is brushing off Ontario's threat to restrict electricity exports in retaliation for sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods, as the province floats the idea of effectively barring sales of American alcohol. On Wednesday, Premier Doug Ford said Ontario is contemplating restricting electricity exports to Michigan, New York state and Minnesota if Trump follows through on a threat to impose a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada. "That's OK if he that does that. That's fine," Trump told American network CNBC when asked Thursday about Ford’s remarks on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. “The United States is subsidizing Canada and we shouldn’t have to do that," Trump added. "And we have a great relationship. I have so many friends in Canada, but we shouldn’t have to subsidize a country," he said, claiming this amounts to more than US$100 billion annually in unspecified subsidies. Meanwhile, an official in the Ford government says it's considering restricting the Liquor Control Board of Ontario from buying American-made alcohol. The province says the Crown agency is the largest purchaser of alcohol in the world. The province also says it could restrict exports of Canadian critical minerals required for electric-vehicle batteries, and bar American companies from provincial procurement. Ford doubled down Thursday on the idea of cutting off energy exports. The province says that in 2013, Ontario exported enough energy to power 1.5 million homes in those three states. "It's a last resort," Ford said. "We're sending a message to the U.S. (that if) you come and attack Ontario, you attack livelihoods of people in Ontario and Canadians, we are going to use every tool in our tool box to defend Ontarians and Canadians. Let’s hope it never comes to that." Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said the province would rather have co-operation with the U.S., but has mechanisms to "end power sale into the U.S. market" the day Trump takes office on Jan. 20. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith ruled out following suit. "Under no circumstances will Alberta agree to cut off oil and gas exports," she said. "Our approach is one of diplomacy, not threats." Michael Sabia, president and CEO of Hydro-Québec, said "it's not our current intention" to cut off Quebec's exports to Massachusetts or New York state, but he conceded it might be possible. "Our intention is to respect those contracts, both because they're legally binding, but also because it's part of, in our view, a sound relationship with the United States," he said. "It's a questionable instrument to use in a trade conflict." Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew would not directly say whether Manitoba would threaten to withhold hydroelectric exports. "We are preparing our list and starting to think through what those options should look like," he said. "I'm not going to make specific news today about items that we're looking at." Kinew added that some premiers felt retaliatory measures wouldn't work in a call Trudeau held Wednesday. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey said "we have no interest in stopping" the export of energy to the U.S., adding that a trade war would hurt both countries. "We hope it is just bluster; we're preparing as if it is not," he said. Canada supplies more oil to the U.S. than any other country. About 60 per cent of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85 per cent of U.S. electricity imports as well. Canada sold $170 billion worth of energy products last year to the U.S. It also has 34 critical minerals and metals the Pentagon is eager for. Trump has threatened to impose a 25 per cent tax on all products entering the United States from Canada and Mexico unless they stem the flow of migrants and drugs. Canadian officials have said it is unfair to lump Canada in with Mexico. U.S. customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border. Canada since has promised more border security spending to address Trump's border concerns. Ford said that will include more border and police officers, as well as drones and sniffer dogs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 12, 2024. — With files from The Associated Press, Liam Casey in Toronto, Lisa Johnson in Edmonton and Steve Lambert in Winnipeg. Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press See a typo/mistake? Have a story/tip? This has been shared 0 times 0 Shares Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message More National Business Creditors approve proposed $32.5B deal with tobacco giants today: lawyer Dec 12, 2024 3:26 PM Vancouver Island First Nation whose ancestors met explorer Capt. Cook sue province Dec 12, 2024 3:16 PM Manitoba premier eyes list of possible retaliatory measures for U.S. tariffs Dec 12, 2024 3:10 PM Featured Flyer
Police say suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO killing wasn't a client of the insurer
Is this finally the end for Bashar al-Assad? Islamist rebels seize control of Aleppo and punch through into Hama city amid claims Syria's monster dictator has now 'fled with his family to Russia' - as his embattled regime looks on the brink of collapse
The lies in the middle of the Indian Ocean and comprises 58 islands including Diego Garcia, which houses a major joint British and American military base. The Archipelago has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. However, in October 2024, a joint statement was issued by the United Kingdom and Mauritius explaining that the two governments had agreed to draft a new treaty which will that the “United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.” As the author has previously , the intended surrender of the Chagos Archipelago would represent a major strategic blow to Western security. Moreover, the plan offers no discernible benefit to the British people or to the Chagossian Islanders, many of whom have come out in against it. In practice, the UK seems to be making this concession based on fear of a negative future court judgment, with the Foreign Secretary that “a binding [judgment] against the UK seemed inevitable.” However, the source of this putative future judgment has not been specified. Surely, if any court with the ability to produce a binding judgment had been available, Mauritius would have already availed itself of that court. Instead, the legal position of the British Government should be based on existing legal circumstances. As this article will show, there is no binding legal judgment compelling the UK to relinquish sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. The adverse statements rendered by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations General Assembly and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea were respectively: (i) non-binding legal advice, (ii) political assertion and (iii) a judgment on the territorial boundary between other States (namely Mauritius and the Maldives). The result is that the UK is not bound by any of their terms. In 2019, the ICJ an Advisory Opinion on the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago. The opinion had three main conclusions. First, “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when Mauritius acceded to independence in 1968” (paragraph 174). Second, “it follows that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State” (paragraph 177). Third, “[a]ccordingly, the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos Archipelago” (paragraph 178). Certainly, the Advisory Opinion was extremely adverse on the merits from a British perspective. However, the purpose of this piece is not to relitigate the merits of the case but, rather, to show that as a matter of procedure the opinion is not binding on the UK. Critically, the ICJ considered the case under its “ ” jurisdiction (Articles 65-68 ICJ Statute) rather than its “contentious” jurisdiction (Articles 34-36 ICJ Statute). Proceedings that occur under the auspices of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction do not have binding legal effect. If one is in doubt about this point, the ICJ’s own website sets out the position clearly. It that “[c]ontrary to judgments ... the Court’s advisory opinions are not binding. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, as it sees fit, what effect to give to these opinions ... [although] the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority.” This merely reflects a long-standing acceptance that Advisory Opinions are non-binding that stretches back as far as the in 1962 where it was noted that “an advisory opinion ... would not have binding force” and an party “could continue to turn a deaf ear” to such a pronouncement. As Thin , “there is no legal basis upon which the ICJ AO would have [binding legal] effect ...There is nothing in previous case law to indicate that ICJ AOs could have [binding legal] effect. There is nothing in the purpose behind ICJ AOs (to provide legal advice to international institutions, particularly the UNGA) to indicate that ICJ AOs could have this effect.” To treat the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion as legally binding would be deeply problematic as it would set a precedent that allows the Court a route by which to circumvent the lack of State consent to its contentious jurisdiction. States are not bound by default to accept the contentious jurisdiction of the ICJ (for example, in territorial delimitation cases). Instead, they must actively consent to its contentious jurisdiction. There are several ways in which this can occur such as express agreement with the other State involved in the dispute, acceptance of jurisdiction in a treaty, issuing a accepting jurisdiction and submission to the court. None of these applied in this particular case: the UK had strongly resisted the ICJ’s contentious jurisdiction and the general declaration that the UK has issued accepting ICJ jurisdiction in most matters specifically “any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth” and this would include Mauritius. As the US Judge in her dissenting opinion, this was a “quintessentially bilateral” contentious case and rendering an opinion “has the effect of circumventing the absence of United Kingdom consent.” To allow a “work-around” whereby the ICJ can simply pretend that what are really “contentious” cases are “advisory” requests and then, further, to claim that their decisions on those cases are binding, would represent a staggering enlargement of the ICJ’s competence that has no grounding in the UN Charter or the ICJ Statute. What should have happened here is that the ICJ should have acknowledged that this was a contentious case wearing an advisory mask. On that , it should have declined to render an opinion as it is entitled to do under (Article 65 ICJ Statute). Dunne that there was no judicial overreach here as the ICJ was not “creating” law or passing a legal judgment per se but, rather, that the Advisory Opinion was “declaratory of the customary international law ... of self-determination as it existed in 1965.” The effect of this position is that we should recognize the ICJ’s opinion as an authoritative statement of already binding law. However, that point does not stand up to scrutiny. As Milanovic , “when it comes to self-determination, the key question for the Court to decide was whether it was already a rule of customary law by 1968 [but] the Court completely fudges it. It simply relies on a series of GA resolutions, to which it expressly ascribes a normative character ... and just asserts that self-determination was already customary at the relevant time. No state practice, no , no nothing – just good plain assertion.” This confirms that what we see in this case is an unprecedented attempt by the ICJ to enlarge its competence by creating new law under the guise of its advisory jurisdiction. That effort should be resisted by States. In short, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion was non-binding. Regardless of its merits or lack therefore, it was not the product of a contentious process and therefore it did not have the capacity to impose obligations on the United Kingdom. Moreover, for the UK or any other State to treat the Opinion as if it did create such obligations, would be to give tacit approval to the Court to ignore the lack of State consent in future cases and to expand the jurisdiction of the ICJ far beyond what was intended. Three months after the release of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, the United Nations General Assembly passed reaffirming the Court’s decision. It demanded that that all States respect the Chagossians’ right to self-determination (paragraph 2), that “the United Kingdom ... withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally within a period of no more than six months” and that the UK facilitates the resettlement of Mauritian nationals (paragraph 3). Mauritius was unsurprisingly thrilled with this expression of support from the UNGA. Its legal team’s leader, Philippe Sands (a Briton, somewhat confusingly), that “I think this may be the first time in history that every African country has supported the resolutions at the General Assembly, the referral of the questions to the ICJ and then the subsequent question. There is absolute unity.” He went on to that “the UN and the ICJ had definitively resolved the dispute” and that “[v]ery frankly, what the United Kingdom wants in relation to the Chagos archipelago is, in a sense, neither here nor there.” However, his confidence seems to be either feigned or misplaced. As noted above, the ICJ Advisory Opinion was non-binding (nor could it credibly be said to reflect existing customary international law). The UNGA resolution which builds on that Opinion is equally non-binding. As the UN Charter , the General Assembly “may make recommendations” to States or to the Security Council but it does not have the capacity to make binding orders (Articles 10-17 UN Charter). This can be contrasted with the position of the Security Council whose decisions are legally binding, with Article 25 UN Charter that members of the United Nations “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” As the UN website itself , “resolutions adopted by the GA on agenda items are considered to be recommendations. They are not legally binding on the Member States. The only resolutions that have the potential to be legally binding are those adopted by the SC.” In short, it is clear that UNGA assembly resolutions, including Resolution 73/295, are merely recommendations. Thus, Resolution 73/295 has no legally binding effect on the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago or its administration of the islands. Certainly, many countries have expressed displeasure with the UK’s position, however that is a political matter. Perhaps the countries that voted for the Resolution were unhappy with the UK based on other grievances. Perhaps they were keen to see a European power lose sovereign territory close to Africa. Perhaps lobbying from opposing powers such as Russia and China had encouraged States to lend their support to the Resolution. It matters little. Ultimately, as a matter of law, the UNGA resolution is a political utterance that represents a barometer of sentiment towards the UK. If a Resolution was passed tomorrow to recommend the stripping of overseas territories from France or Portugal, they would be similarly ineffective. The final against the UK in the context of the Chagos Archipelago is from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Again, however, this decision has no binding legal effect compelling the UK to relinquish sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago or affecting the delimitation of the UK’s territory. As will be explained in more detail below, this is because (i) the ITLOS Special Chamber assumed that the ICJ and UNGA pronouncements represented binding law when they did not and because (ii) on the basis of the first point, the UK was inappropriately excluded from the proceedings before ITLOS hence those proceedings cannot bind the UK. On the first point, the ITLOS Special Chamber simply aligned with the prior statements of the UNGA and the ICJ in a manner that amounted to a disregard of its judicial responsibility. As Roeben and Jankovic , the Special Chamber “did accept the GA determination as a given and, on that basis, proceeded to spell out an implication, ruling with constitutive effect on the aspect of sovereignty that is under its jurisdiction.” As noted above, UNGA resolutions have no binding legal effect, therefore to defer to them in this manner is inappropriate. Regarding its reliance on the ICJ Advisory Opinion, the Special Chamber that “it is generally recognized that advisory opinions of the ICJ cannot be considered legally binding”, but observed that “it is equally recognized that an advisory opinion entails an authoritative statement of international law on the questions with which deals” (paragraph 202). However, as noted above, this is incorrect as there was no clear customary international law position surrounding self-determination in the 1950s. The ICJ was simply concealing judicial law making behind a mask of judicial declaration of existing law. Separately, the Special Chamber that “judicial determinations made in advisory opinions carry no less weight and authority than those in judgments because they are made with the same rigour and scrutiny” (paragraph 203). This is also incorrect. There is a material difference between judgments and Advisory Opinions – if there was not then there would have been no need to furnish the ICJ with two separate jurisdictional capacities in the first place. As noted above, ICJ Advisory Opinions are not binding (and thus do not require State consent to jurisdiction) whereas ICJ judgments are biding (and thus do require State consent to jurisdiction). The fact that Advisory Opinions are made with the same “rigor and scrutiny” is irrelevant; otherwise we might get to the point where the ICJ bench could render a binding legal opinion by co-writing a monograph together. When it comes to law, forum and form matter. On the second point, the result of the ITLOS Special Chamber’s deference to the UNGA and ICJ above was, as Thin , the “rather remarkable conclusion ... that the dispute between the UK and Mauritius had in fact already been determinatively resolved ... and that there was therefore no bar to jurisdiction.” Of course, this conclusion was wrong as the decisions were non-binding and so the UK remained sovereign over the Chagos Islands. However, the ITLOS Special Chamber’s error led it to decide that the UK was not an “indispensable” party to the present proceedings and that it could resolve a putative territorial dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives without allowing the UK to make representations. This was a violation of the established in the that a court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over a question when a third state’s legal interests would “form the very subject-matter of the decision.” By definition, a UK legal interest (territorial sovereignty) was the subject matter of the present dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives and yet this was entirely ignored. The result was that, as Roeben and Jankovic , the Special Chamber “found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives [and] conclude[ed] that Mauritius can be regarded as the coastal State in respect of the Chagos Archipelago.” What ought to have happened in the ITLOS proceedings was that the Special Chamber acknowledged that neither the ICJ Advisory Opinion nor the UN General Assembly Resolution resolved the Chagos Archipelago dispute. Thus, it should have declined jurisdiction in the absence of UK representation. Indeed, this was the view expressed in the dissenting of Judge Oxman. Instead, the judgment was rendered and it prompted the UK Foreign Office to , correctly, that, “as not being a party to the proceedings, the UK is under no requirement to comply with the ruling.” In short, the ITLOS decision to take jurisdiction over the putative territorial dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives was flawed because there was no extant binding international law or judgment that removed UK sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and thus the UK should have been a party to any proceedings concerning the sovereignty or territorial delimitation of those islands. In the absence of its participation, the UK cannot be said to be bound by the Special Chamber’s decision. Sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago has been the subject of a long dispute between the UK and Mauritius. A narrative is beginning to form that the combination of the ICJ advisory opinion, the UN General Assembly Resolution and the ITLOS Special Chamber decision furnish Mauritius with a solid claim to sovereignty over the island chain. This narrative is flawed. None of the decisions discussed above impose a binding legal obligation on the UK to vacate sovereignty: (i) the ICJ Advisory Opinion is “advisory” only; (ii) the UN General Assembly resolution is a “recommendation” and (iii) the ITLOS proceedings did not involve the UK and therefore do not have the capacity to bind the UK. For the UK to relinquish sovereignty based on a false narrative that lacks the foundation of an enforceable legal judgment would be an error. John Jay born John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the state of New York, co-author of the Federalist Papers and first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was born on December 12, 1745.Read a of John Jay, and pay a virtual visit to the , to which he retired in 1801. Kenya becomes independent On December 12, 1963, Kenya attained independence from the United Kingdom.A Tennessee man is convicted of killing 2 at a high school basketball game in 2021
NoneGEORGETOWN 100, ALBANY 68IN PRAISE OF KUNLE AJIBADE
Sunday Cards & Cocoa: 2 p.m., LINC Library, 501 8th Ave., Greeley. Get into the holiday spirit by creating four festive cards. Join for a cozy afternoon of crafting, complete with a hot cocoa bar. Sip on cocoa, get creative and make something special for loved ones this holiday season. Adults only. Registration required. Free, highplains.libcal.com . Tuesday Knit & Crochet: 1 p.m., Farr Regional Library, 1939 61st Ave., Greeley. This is a time to knit and crochet with fellow crafters. Get tips and help from others, and share projects, favorite patterns or “purls” of wisdom. All experience levels and other needle crafters are welcome. facebook.com . Bingo: 6:45 p.m., Greeley-Evans Moose Lodge, 3456 11th Ave., Evans. The Knights of Columbus hosts bingo every Tuesday evening at the Moose Lodge in Evans. The organization helps support three parishes, the Weld Food Bank, Envision, Schaefer Services and more. Bingo sessions are open to the public. $6-$199. Wednesday Playdate Café: 2 p.m., LINC Library, 501 8th Ave., Greeley. Children learn and grow through play. Caregivers recharge with a cup of coffee or tea. Playdate Café is a special time for caregivers to relax while their little one enjoys unstructured play. Free, highplains.libcal.com . Aims Student & Faculty Recitals: 3 p.m., Aims Community College – Ed Beaty Hall Theater, 5203 W. 20th St., Greeley. Hear Aims students perform live music. Concerts are free and open to the public. Free, events.aims.edu . Coding Club: 4 p.m., LINC Library, 501 8th Ave., Greeley. Learn to code using guided lessons in languages such as Scratch, JavaScript, CSS, HTML and more. For kids ages 9 and up, basic computer and independent reading skills are necessary. Free, highplains.libcal.com . Mannheim Steamroller Christmas: 7 p.m., Union Colony Civic Center, 701 10th Ave., Greeley. The holiday tradition continues. “Mannheim Steamroller Christmas” by Chip Davis has been America’s favorite holiday tradition for more than 35 years. The program includes 15 musicians playing more than 20 instruments against a backdrop of dazzling multimedia effects – capturing the spirit of the season in an immersive yet intimate setting. $53-$93, 970-356-5000, UCStars.showare.com . Thursday Wine and Design: 6 p.m., Union Colony Civic Center, 701 10th Ave., Greeley. Enjoy wine, hors d’oeuvres and holiday creativity during the instructor-led glass fusion workshop. $52, greeleygov.com . Trivia at High Brau Taphouse: 6:30 p.m. Thursday, High Brau Taphouse, 915 16th St., Greeley. Weekly trivia hosted by Wilson with theme trivia on the last Thursday of the month. Free, 407-417-1161. Friday First Friday Art Party: 5 p.m., Madison & Main Gallery, 927 16th St., Greeley. Meet the artists and guest artists. There will be artist demos or special guests and small snacks. Free, 970-351-6201. Enchanted Masquerade: 6 p.m. LINC Library Innovation Center, 501 8th Ave., Greeley. This magical evening, inspired by the fantasy worlds of Velaris, Elfhame and Navarre, is designed to bring guests together for a night of elegance and enchantment. The evening will sparkle with dancing, delicious treats and mocktails, a mystical photo booth, crafts and games . Registration required. Free, highplains.libcal.com . Santa’s Guitar: 7 p.m., Moxi Theater, 802 9th St., Greeley. Colorado Country Music Hall of Fame inductee Ryan Chrys and the Rough Cuts will be performing an energetic mix of original and classic Christmas music. Get ready for a fun set filled with Christmas cheer and plentiful licks from Santa’s guitar. facebook.com . To submit events, go to greeleytribune.com/calendar and click “Add Event” in the top right corner of the calendar.Reilly scores 18 as Delaware downs Rider 72-66
Australia's Insignia Financial gets $1.7 billion takeover offer from Bain CapitalMiner assaults partner, 'wrestles' police in an alcohol-fuelled episode
A melee broke out at midfield of Ohio Stadium after Michigan upset No. 2 Ohio State 13-10 on Saturday. After the Wolverines' fourth straight win in the series, players converged at the block "O" to plant its flag. The Ohio State players were in the south end zone singing their alma mater in front of the student section. When the Buckeyes saw the Wolverines' flag, they rushed toward the 50-yard line. Social media posts showed Michigan offensive lineman Raheem Anderson carrying the flag on a long pole to midfield, where the Wolverines were met by dozens of Ohio State players and fights broke out. Buckeyes defensive end Jack Sawyer was seen ripping the flag off the pole and taking the flag as he scuffled with several people trying to recover the flag. A statement from the Ohio State Police Department read: "Following the game, officers from multiple law enforcement agencies assisted in breaking up an on-field altercation. During the scuffle, multiple officers representing Ohio and Michigan deployed pepper spray. OSUPD is the lead agency for games and will continue to investigate." Michigan running back Kalel Mullings on FOX said: "For such a great game, you hate to see stuff like that after the game. It's bad for the sport, bad for college football. At the end of the day, some people got to learn how to lose, man. "You can't be fighting and stuff just because you lost the game. We had 60 minutes and four quarters to do all that fighting. Now people want to talk and fight. That's wrong. It's bad for the game. Classless, in my opinion. People got to be better." Once order was restored, officers cordoned the 50-yard line, using bicycles as barriers. Ohio State coach Ryan Day in his postgame press conference said he wasn't sure what happened. "I don't know all the details of it. But I know that these guys are looking to put a flag on our field and our guys weren't going to let that happen," he said. "I'll find out exactly what happened, but this is our field and certainly we're embarrassed at the fact we lost the game, but there's some prideful guys on our team that weren't just going to let that happen." The Big Ten has not yet released a statement on the incident. --Field Level Media
- Previous:
- Next: bet builder 747
