The proposal still may not satisfy critics from developing countries who say the United States continues to shirk responsibility for all the greenhouse gases it has released into the atmosphere since the 19th century. Another potential sticking point is the United States’ insistence that China – now the world’s biggest carbon polluter – must be among the countries opening up its portfolio.

Yet the idea that the United States would even consider supporting the creation of a climate damages fund is a potentially seismic shift in thinking after 30 years of opposing the concept. It could also draw heavy criticism at home, where Republicans hostile to President Joe Biden’s climate agenda are set to take control of the House in January.

A State Department spokesperson said late Friday that summit delegates were continuing to negotiate, but did not confirm the draft text was a US proposal.

However, a British official told POLITICO that officials from the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia drafted the text together after being summoned by Alok Sharma, a British MP who led the UN climate talks last year in Glasgow, Scotland.

The draft being circulated, which has not yet been formally proposed to the Egyptian presidency of the summit, would expand the sources and methods of funding for affected communities. It calls for a two-year process that would culminate in the creation of an “effective fund that attracts contributions from a wide range of Parties and sources, both public and private.”

The document also says a task force should be created to design the fund and tasked with “expanding funding sources,” in a nod to US concerns over China paying.

The United States, which is historically the world’s biggest contributor to climate change, has raised concerns that a fund would open it up to legal action for damage from its fossil fuel emissions dating back to the start. of the industrial revolution. The text includes an explicit clause exempting donor countries from “liability and compensation”.

Many provisions of the proposal address US concerns about relying solely on public money to fill the fund. US special climate envoy John Kerry – who had been conducting talks by phone from isolation after falling out with Covid-19 – said it would be politically difficult to secure that funding through Congress.

The draft calls for “strengthening the responsiveness” of bilateral, multilateral and international financial institutions, which alludes to development banks such as the World Bank, of which the United States is the main shareholder. It also calls on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to “contribute to financing arrangements…in response to loss and damage.”

Kerry argued that multilateral development banks need to spend more money on renewable energy and on efforts to adapt to droughts, rising seas and other effects of climate change in the developing world. He called on them this week to have a plan to overhaul their climate strategy by April.

The document also calls for the use of “debt deferral” by multilateral lenders in the wake of climate disasters hitting heavily indebted countries, an idea championed earlier at the two-week conference by the Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley and supported by French President Emmanuel Macron. .

The project falls short of a request made on Tuesday by a bloc of 134 developing countries, including China, which called for the creation of a fund during the talks in Egypt rather than at a later date. This fund would be designed by a working group in which the balance of power would be held by the poorest countries who would be the beneficiaries. The EU criticized this proposal to prevent China from contributing.

The EU then made a counter-proposal to immediately create a new fund, but with only “the most vulnerable countries” as beneficiaries. He also conditioned the fund on global greenhouse gas emissions peaking before 2025 and would expand its donor base beyond the wealthiest industrialized countries — two issues that challenge long-standing red lines for China.

A climate activist present at the talks, Harjeet Singh of Climate Action Network International, derided the text leaked on Friday as “another watered-down version of what the European Union presented earlier”.

“Instead of establishing a new fund at COP27, as demanded by developing countries, it offers only a vague process to postpone the decision,” said Singh, the group’s head of global policy strategy. “Such a proposal undermines the urgency of the action required to meet the needs of people facing the climate emergency.”

As the dust settles at Old Trafford following the first shockwaves of Cristiano Ronaldoclub officials have been busy considering their options for the next step in resolving an increasingly toxic situation.

On the day the first episode of Talk TV’s interview with presenter Piers Morgan airs, Manchester UnitedThe owners of the Glazer family, managing director Richard Arnold and director of football John Murtough, together with manager Erik ten Hag, will speak with their lawyers while they wait to see the full extent of the player’s comments over the next 24 hours. .

So far, in excerpts also published by the Sun newspaper and video clips viewed more than 11 million times on social media, Ronaldo has accused his employers of betrayal and disrespect, lashing out at Ten Hag and to the club’s hierarchy. Here’s what we know so far.

But what options are available to the club? How could they take a constructive step forward after the 37-year-old superstar’s embarrassing controversy?

---

What is the biggest consideration for United based on what they know?

The most important thing for United is to establish the extent to which Ronaldo breaches his contract through his comments and what they are then able to do as a result.

All top flight players sign a premier league employment contract with their clubs.

Under the agreement, they are required to “comply with and act in accordance with all lawful instructions of any authorized officer of the club” and are not permitted to “write or say anything that might discredit the club… or cause damage to the club”.

Jamie Singer, a partner at sports law specialist Onside Law, believes that Ronaldo may already be in breach of his standard contract.

“In the contract there is a specific provision that talks about not saying anything that brings discredit to the club or damages the reputation of the club,” he says. “The content of the interview immediately puts him in violation.

“The standard conditions also cover, as far as possible, informing the club beforehand about the interviews you are doing. He could have informed the club, so I think it was probably another breach.

It is understood United were made aware of the interview by Ronaldo’s camp on Sunday, shortly before Morgan’s first tweet to post it, so it could be open to interpretation if this qualifies as notice. within reason.

“If I understand correctly, the standard contract does not prohibit players from doing interviews,” adds Singer. “But it forces them to try to help the club by telling them they are doing it in advance and making sure they are reached.”

In this case, Ronaldo is no different to his teammates or players from the other 19 Premier League clubs.

“It’s a standard Premier League contract that every Manchester United player will have signed and every club is obliged to use,” says Singer. “He (Ronaldo) will have signed those terms.

“This includes implied terms about trust, loyalty and obedience to reasonable instructions.

“There’s no doubt that what he’s done puts him in breach of the standard contract. From what I’ve seen, accusing the club of betrayal, of breach of commitments, it’s pretty easy to say that he has discredited the club and damaged the interests of the club.

What could happen if United decided that Ronaldo had breached his contract?

Ultimately, the club could terminate the Portuguese’s contract.

Having originally joined United in August 2021 on a two-year contract with an option for an additional year, his current terms are set to expire in August 2023 – assuming that additional year has not been agreed.

However, if the United hierarchy feel the player staying at the club is impossible and want to try and get rid of him even in the face of appeals or more damaging publicity, there is a process they can follow.

“If he’s out of contract, that’s one thing,” adds Singer. “But if it’s such a fundamental breach of contract that can lead to termination, that’s another level.

“You can’t prejudge a few out-of-context clips and snippets, so it makes sense that United and their legal team know exactly what is being said and then make judgment.”

United might be best advised to go through the set process as they would for any potential breach of contract and consider all of their options.

“There is a disciplinary process and if someone is in breach of contract by doing something they shouldn’t have done, the club has the option to fine the player and impose a penalty” , explains Singer.

A high-profile precedent is former United striker Romelu Lukaku.

The striker gave an explosive interview at Sky Italia last season, lambasting chelseabehavior when he does not play regularly. Then-Chelsea head coach Thomas Tuchel said Lukaku would face ‘disciplinary action’ for the interview but, unlike Ronaldo, he was a player signed for £90million a few months later early.

Lukaku, who also apologized for his interview, is now on loan for the season at Inter Milan, the club he left for Chelsea.

“If it’s serious or if the player doesn’t agree, you enter the disciplinary procedure where the player has the opportunity to defend himself,” says Singer. “The club will say what they think they did wrong, they can say they don’t think they did anything wrong and then it’s up to the club board to decide what should be the sanction or if there is a penalty at all.

“In this situation, it would be an internal hearing and could potentially come to a situation where he has committed serious misconduct and they can terminate the contract.

“Or if they believe there’s so much going on here, they could cut it short and say they don’t need a disciplinary process. They might argue that it is so clear and obvious that it is serious misconduct that they would go straight for dismissal with 14 days notice.

Are there examples of players whose contract has been terminated?

In August 2011, City of Hull terminated Jimmy Bullard’s recording contract following an incident during a pre-season trip to Slovenia.

Bullard had a lucrative contract until the end of the 2012–13 season and this led to a legal dispute between him and the club. The ex-midfielder has reportedly finally agreed to a settlement and both sides have signed confidentiality agreements.

In 2014, Nicolas Anelka was sacked by West Bromwich Albion for serious misconduct. Anelka – who was given a five-match ban and £80,000 fine by the Football Association for the quenelle gesture he made West Ham – had announced via Twitter that he was ending his playing contract, which had three and a half months to run.

The club had suspended the Frenchman on full pay following the FA verdict and planned to carry out their own investigation. West Brom initially said his statement on Twitter was “very unprofessional”.

Three hours later, the club revealed they had written to Anelka giving her 14 days’ notice to terminate, as required by her contract. They said Anelka did not apologize for “the impact and consequences of her (quenelle) gesture” or accept a substantial fine, which would have resulted in the lifting of his suspension.

Singer thinks United would be best advised to go through the entire process, no matter how angry they might feel about the interview.

“The safest route is to go through the process of a disciplinary hearing, we will establish it and you can defend yourself,” he says. “Then we decide on the sanction.

“If they find him guilty of serious misconduct, which is very rare, the player can always appeal to the Premier League. What makes it unusual is that the value of a player’s registration is usually so important It is unusual for a club to terminate a player’s registration contract because of the value of their registration.

“But here, however, they pay him several hundred thousand a week and they won’t be able to sell him for a big transfer fee. It changes the dynamic a lot.

“To save £400,000 a week it might be worth going this route. There’s enough inflammatory stuff in what we’ve seen that probably warrants serious misconduct.

“They would probably want to go through a disciplinary process to protect themselves against any claims that it was not due process and fairness. Knowing Ronaldo would likely challenge them, then they have another layer of protection.

So what could be the end result?

Despite the possibility of tearing up his contract, United can choose to do things amicably and quietly.

As well as criticizing United’s training ground facilities and a series of other harmful observations about its culture, Ronaldo accused the club of showing a lack of ’empathy’ when his young daughter was hospitalized in July.

Simon Leaf, head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, believes settling the matter privately could be the best way for the club to further limit embarrassment.

“The club is caught between a rock and a hard place,” he said. “(A) the right to terminate is subject to Ronaldo’s right of appeal – particularly as it appears to suggest that United are failing in their own obligations to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their employees, which may go so far as to allow Ronaldo some time off under such difficult circumstances.

“There is no easy answer to this particular legal wrangle, and from experience it is suspected that given the sums involved in terms of wages and a possible transfer fee which may be waived, Ronaldo and the club will now try to resolve the issues as amicably as possible in private so that both parties save face.

(Top photo: Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

Army families continue the Department of Defense above the squalor of their living quarters receive “bullying” ultimatums to drop claims or face lost wages to cover legal costs.

Documents obtained by the Guardian suggest the threat of further financial hardship amid a deepening cost-of-living crisis is being exploited by government lawyers to prevent courts from considering compensation claims.

Hundreds of military families are understood to be seeking legal redress at a time when the military family housing (SFA) system has been overwhelmed with complaints.

The Ministry of Defense did not appear to defend the legal claims already filed, on the grounds that the government failed to provide safe and well-maintained homes.

Government lawyers instead sent aggressive letters warning that unless the claims are dropped, the MoD will seek full costs in the event of a subsequent judgment in their favor.

The strategy has even been deployed where the county court has issued a “default” judgment in favor of the military family in cases where the Department of Defense has failed to defend a claim.

In correspondence seen by this newspaper, a senior government lawyer wrote: “The purpose of this letter is to make you an open offer that if you accept that the default judgment order be set aside and that you drop the claim in consent order process (a copy of a draft of which is attached), the MoD will not seek its legal costs from this process.

“If, however, you do not agree with this by the end of Wednesday September 14, 2022, we will issue the request and seek full legal costs from the MoD.”

In a letter to a second plaintiff, the same government attorney, acting for the Treasury Attorney, wrote: “If you disagree and expose us to the pain and expense of a claim disputed, we will seek the Ministry of Defense’s legal costs (which I have no doubt can be recovered by deduction from your salary). Please respond no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, October 3, 2022.”

When questioned, the lawyer behind the correspondence declined to comment.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman said: “These cases relate to property leased outside the UK. We will not comment further on this due to ongoing legal proceedings.

The revelations drew condemnation from all parties.

Shadow Defense Secretary John Healey said: “This is completely unacceptable. Ministers must cancel the Ministry of Defense’s legal dogs and drop these threats against the families of the forces.

“When service families have to go to court to get basic repairs done, it confirms deep shortcomings in service accommodation. Yet the ministers do not have a proper plan to solve the problems.

Mark Francois, a former Conservative Armed Forces Minister, said: ‘Ministers clearly need to step in urgently, to sort out this terrible mess.’

Tobias Ellwood, Tory Chairman of the Commons Defense Select Committee, said: ‘All service members and their families deserve quality housing.

“When they’re not on operations, that’s where the military spends their time and that’s where the family feels at home. Increasingly, it is the constraints and pressures on family life that tip the scales by forcing serving personnel to leave the military.

A whistleblower says the MoD is looking to ‘bully’ service personnel, but a growing number of service personnel are preparing to take legal action over the MoD’s failure to ensure that their houses were of a decent standard.

According to documents obtained by the Guardian, a military family, following a successful claim in County Court, obtained a High Court writ and sent bailiffs to the headquarters of the infrastructure organization of defense of the Ministry of Defense at Lichfield in Staffordshire.

A senior Ministry of Defense official asked the bailiff to leave without taking any possessions as payment because it “could make headlines”, according to a report on the October 4 incident.

Alfie Usher, a former paratrooper who now runs the claims management company Complaints Biblesaid it had received 400 expressions of interest in the past fortnight from staff wishing to lodge complaints against the MoD, of which it expected 100 to reach a complaint threshold.

He said: ‘They include cases of black mold and cases of asbestos have been reported. A guy who found asbestos in his kitchen, he was just told to stay away from the area. Heating is also important, especially with those who have children.

“A complaint is the only way: when it starts to cost them money, the MoD will start listening. It’s not earned, no fees, and worst case scenario when we make a claim, the MoD will come and fix it.

The condition of accommodation rented to military personnel and their families has long been of concern.

Under a 1996 deal brokered by then Defense Secretary Michael Portillo, around 57,000 such properties were sold to Annington Homes for £1.66billion. The company is now owned by Terra Firma, the private equity giant founded by billionaire Guy Hands.

As part of the deal, the government took a 200-year lease on the houses to continue to provide accommodation for service personnel. The MoD retained responsibility for repairs and maintenance.

Without being able to capitalize on the increase in property values, the Ministry of Defense is struggling to maintain the aging building stock.

Four years ago the National Audit Office found that rising house prices meant the government was between £2.2bn and £4.2bn worse off than it would have been if it had retained the real estate portfolio.

In September, the MoD defense infrastructure organization was have to apologize about the ‘unacceptable’ service provided by three outsourcing companies who were awarded £650million contracts to handle complaints, housing allocation and maintenance.

PKR Deputy Chairman Rafizi Ramli has been threatened with legal action over allegations of abuse in the award of a RM2 billion contract by the government for flood mitigation works.

Environment and Water Minister Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, whose lawyers published the letter of formal notice against Rafizi today, had denied having approved any project since the dissolution of parliament on October 10.

He also said that he ensured that all projects approved by his ministry complied with financial procedures, and that he never interfered in matters concerning tenders issued by the ministry.

The letter published by his lawyers today indicates that Rafizi on November 7 and 9 made two statements at press conferences in Petaling Jaya, claiming, among other things, that Tuan Ibrahim, in his capacity as minister, was to approve the direct tender award project to Mangkubumi Sdn Bhd, and that he had been secretly involved in awarding projects under the Jana Wibawa scheme.

Lawyers for Tuan Ibrahim said the allegations imply that he abused his position as environment and water minister, was unqualified for the job and was a person without integrity that had no morals and no respect for the rule of law.

They said that Rafizi also implied that Tuan Man, the vice president of PAS, was involved in corrupt activities and used his ministry for the benefit of a company in order to profit for himself. .

They also accused Rafizi of using the case as campaign material for the upcoming elections, to profit from the race for the Pandan parliamentary seat.

They gave Rafizi seven days to issue a written statement that he would stop making such statements, along with a public apology and a suggestion of compensation.

Failing that, they said, they had been instructed to take appropriate action, including the possibility of legal action.

Rafizi had rejected calls to report the matter to Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission, saying it would not be investigated.

Monrovia lawyers representing Stella Maris University Comptroller Alexander Berrian have refuted media reports that their client was arrested for alleged rape by a Monrovia City Court officer at the Temple of Justice.

Atti. Tonia Gibson told FrontPageAfrica Correspondence that the scene created over the weekend during Stella Maris’ graduation exercise against her client Alexander Berrian is fake, as reported by the Liberia News Agency and other media.

He said the writ, a copy of which is in the possession of FrontPageAfrica, is a writ of summons and clearly shows that Mr. Berrian has been charged with criminal coercion, harassment and threats based on a complaint filed by a certain Roosevelt Harvey and not summoned for rape, as allegedly reported.

Plaintiff Roosevelt R. Harvey alleged that he was kidnapped by Stella Maris’ comptroller and that his phones and car keys went missing in the process, during which he suffered bodily harm contrary to the media report.

The writ noted that the defendant’s action had been committed with malice and bad intention.

Further, the writ noted the unlawful, unlawful, al and intentional nature of this violation of Sections 14.27, 14.25 and 14.21 of the New Criminal Law of Liberia.

As a result, Berrian’s legal team led by Atty. Vincent Smith has threatened legal action against the Liberia News Agency and other media for reporting lies about his client.

They argued that their client was never summoned for rape, but rather criminal coercion, harassment, threat and simple assault.

(NewsNation) – The National Sheriff’s Association has released images of some of the 856 migrants who died in 2022 while attempting to cross into the United States, in an effort to raise awareness of the hardships migrants face in reaching the United States.

It was a record year at the border for the number of migrants who died and migrants encountered or arrested by Border Patrol agents. The record numbers polarized politicians in Washington DC, who took a few stepsbut haven’t found a solution yet.

Jonathan Thompson, the head of National Association of Sheriffssaid he hoped the released images of dead migrants could spur Washington to act.

“Those in the desert who did not survive, drowned in the river, 856 Poor souls, they were given false hope, they were given the belief that they could get here and they could survive the trip and to the trip,” Thompson said. “And they died a miserable, horrible, horrible death and all of this could have been avoided.”

Thompson defended the decision to publish the photos of the dead migrants, saying he felt it was the best way to get people’s attention on the border.

Now a lot of people who can see them might think that’s a pretty horrible way to get the message out to people, but there’s not a sane, reasonable person in this country who can’t look these photos and looking at these images of people crossing the border and not saying something is wrong, something has to stop and something has to change,” Thompson said.

Thompson believes it falls to President Joe Biden to enact border changes.

“We need immigrants. We need immigrants to help this country grow, we have to have them and we want them,” Thompson said. “But we need it to follow a legal route, a legal process. Millions and millions of people come to this country, the “Shining Hill”, as everyone calls us. But now this shining hill, I’m sorry to say, is a hotbed of death and destruction for too many people.

WASHINGTON — Election Day is 12 days away. But in courtrooms across the country, efforts to cast doubt on the outcome have already begun.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed this year around the upcoming midterm elections. The suits, largely by Republicans, target the rules on postal voteearly voting, voter access, voting machines, recording of votes, counting of mismarked absentee ballots and access for partisan poll watchers.

It’s the most dispute ever before an election and this is likely a glimpse of a potentially contentious post-election landscape. The strategy was born in part of the failure of former President Donald Trump’s allies to successfully challenge and annul the free and fair results of the 2020 presidential election.

But while the 2020 electoral effort was an ad hoc response led by an increasingly ill-prepared lawyers this included Rudy Giuliani, today’s effort is a more formalized, well-funded, and well-organized campaign led by the Republican National Committee and other legal allies with good faith. Party officials say they are actively preparing for recounts, contested elections and other disputes. And there are thousands of volunteers in place ready to challenge ballots and search for evidence of wrongdoing.

“We are now at the point where accusations of fraud and suppression are integrated into the participation models of each party. Republicans accuse fraud. Democrats blame the crackdown. Each side amplifies its position with massive and costly amounts of litigation and messaging,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network and former campaign lawyer for George W. Bush and other Republican candidates.

Democrats also have similar efforts underway. But their pre-election legal effort aims to make it easier to vote and help those unable to vote, through legal helplines and volunteers. A team led by attorney Marc Elias and his firm is litigating about 40 cases in 19 states, some in which they have intervened in Republican-led lawsuits.

Elias said he was bracing for a deluge of litigation challenging the election results, especially as some Republican candidates have already said they won’t accept a loss or cast doubt on the election process despite no evidence of fraud.

“The problem with the Republican Party right now is that conceding that you lost an election is the only thing that will hurt you,” Elias said. “Disputing an election that is clearly lost is now where the whole incentive structure is, and it’s incredibly corrosive to democracy.”

Election disputes are nothing new; almost every election generates a legal challenge. But the bulk of these disputes usually occur after the vote, not before Election Day.

In 2020, pro-Trump lawyers filed about 60 lawsuits across the country and asked judges to overturn votes. These lawsuits were categorically dismissed. Trump’s own leadership found the election to be fair, and state election officials nationwide saw no widespread evidence of fraud. Biden secured 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, the same margin as Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, which he repeatedly described as a “landslide”.

At the time, the Republican establishment did not embrace Trump’s lies about the election. Since then, however, the lies have taken root within the party and become a major talking point for many candidates. Some refused to commit to accepting the results after November 8.

Ginsberg said unsubstantiated accusations that elections were fraudulent, rigged or unreliable have become the basis for a Republican candidate winning a contested primary in 2022 in most states, and that’s a problem.

“It can only hurt public confidence in the election, which Republicans will end up paying the price for.”

This year, the emphasis is on attack. The RNC said it has established a multimillion-dollar “election integrity” team, hiring 37 lawyers in key states, conducting more than 5,000 trainings to teach volunteers to look for voter fraud, which is rare, and filed 73 lawsuits in 20 states. Other Trump-allied legal teams are also preparing for litigation, including America First Legal, led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

“We have built an unprecedented electoral integrity ground game to ensure that November’s midterm elections are free, fair and transparent,” RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said late last month.

For three decades, the RNC was under a consent decree which prohibited him from challenging voter qualifications and targeting suspected fraud. The consent decree, which ended in 2019, stemmed from a Democratic National Committee lawsuit that argued Republicans were seeking to deter black Americans from voting by sending armed and off-duty law enforcement officers into some polling stations and sending targeted mailings warning of sanctions for election violations. laws.

In 2020, Republican poll watchers, who have no direct role in elections and cannot interfere in the electoral process outside of monitoring and reporting issues, have been the basis of numerous lawsuits by allies. of Trump. But when judges pressed evidence to support partisan claims of sleazy behavior by election workers, litigation fell through.

Election workers are increasingly subjected abuse and threats of violence. In battleground states, voter intimidation the cases are increasing. Election officials and law enforcement are increasingly concerned about overly aggressive poll watchers or people posing as poll watchers intimidating voters.

Last week the RNC won a legal challenge against Michigan Secretary of State, Democrat Jocelyn Benson, who sought to reduce rank partisanship by issuing rules on how poll challengers can operate.

“Jocelyn Benson not only ignored Michigan election law by issuing these guidelines, but also violated the rights of political parties and ballot candidates to fully ensure transparency and promote confidence that Michigan’s elections take place in a fair and legal manner,” McDaniel said in a statement.

The RNC has won legal challenges in Nevada and Arizona over the appointment of poll workers and in Wisconsin over the toughening of ballots and ballot boxes. Other lawsuits include litigation in Pennsylvania over dating postal ballots and whether outside parties should be allowed to examine voting machines.

Democrats also continue to file litigation. Democratic-led groups have filed about 35 lawsuits mostly aimed at facilitating voting. Just this week, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Voto Latino and the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans to end bullying over the use of drop boxes in Arizona. The ACLU of Pennsylvania sent a letter to Allegheny County officials regarding mail-in voting issues.

On the way to 2020, the nation had mainly focused on whether foreign actors – Russia or perhaps China – would meddle in the election and wreak havoc on the vote count. It didn’t happen; instead, the conspiracy was born and fed on Trump and his supporters.

US officials are sound the alarm again that Russia is working to amplify doubts about the integrity of the elections.

This week, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “No outside cyber activity has ever stopped a registered voter from voting; compromised the integrity of any ballot; or affected the accuracy of voter registration information.

And she promised the government would “monitor any threats to our elections if they arise and work as a cohesive and cohesive interagency to provide relevant information to election officials and workers on the ground.”

China’s reputation has deteriorated rapidly over the past four years, particularly in the west, and much of world opinion would support some form of international aid for Taiwan whether Beijing tries to take the island by force, according to a poll.

It comes as Xi Jinping warned of ‘dangerous storms’ on the horizon as he was confirmed on Sunday as Chinese leader for an unprecedented third termand as Washington warns that Beijing is acceleration plans annex the island.

The YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project also found that while sentiment toward China was significantly more favorable in other parts of the world than it was in the West, respondents in 20 of the 25 countries surveyed prefer the United States as the reigning superpower.

Chart

The survey found a dramatic decline in China’s global standing since it was first conducted in 2019, with the percentage of respondents saying they believe China plays a positive role in the world dropping by half in some countries.

Pro-Chinese sentiment has collapsed over the past four years, dropping from 46% to 24% in Poland, 36% to 17% in France, 30% to 13% in Germany, 32% to 11% in Denmark, 41% to 24% in Italy, 35% to 11% in the UK and 44% to 23% in India. It fell from 27% to 18% in the United States.

While Covid-19 partly informs this negative sentiment, with majorities of more than 80% convinced that the pandemic started in China and considerable proportions (at least 40% in many countries) suspecting that it originated or was created in a laboratory, human rights violations also seem to be a growing concern.

In countries such as France (45%, versus 39%), Germany (53%, versus 46%), Denmark (53%, versus 45%), Spain (30%, versus 21%) and Greece (29%, down from 18%), more people this year than last time selected China from a list of countries as the one they said had “put hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, or more , in mass prison camps, without fair and proper judicial process”.

Chart

The outgoing UN human rights commissioner said in a report last month that China had committed serious human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang Province that may constitute crimes against humanity. The report concluded that there was an acute risk of arbitrary detention and that it was “reasonable to conclude that a pattern of large-scale arbitrary detention occurred in [vocational education and training centre] installations, at least from 2017 to 2019.”

The YouGov survey, conducted between August 24 and September 22, identified a significant rebound in positive opinion of the United States, with several countries showing a V-shaped pattern in which positive opinions fell from 2019 to 2020 but then rebounded, often to a new high, in the past two years.

American leadership has become markedly more popular: this year, for example, 62% of respondents in Germany said they prefer the United States to China as the most powerful force in global politics, up from 43% in 2019 and 67 % in the UK, up. from 52%.

Moreover, in the vast majority of countries, many more people chose the United States over China as their favorite superpower, undermining Beijing’s hopes of being seen as an alternative source of global leadership – by margins of 77% to 15% in Nigeria, 69% to 9% in India, 48% to 23% in Mexico, 59% to 11% in Brazil and 45% to 19% in Greece.

Nonetheless, said YouGov academic director Joel Rogers de Waal, there was still good news for China in the results, which showed “a clear divide between the West and other parts of the world in the general sentiment to respect”.

Majorities in nine of the 12 non-Western countries in the survey had a positive view of China’s role in the world, and there was evidence that Beijing’s post-pandemic reputation was improving in several countries.

In Mexico, positive views of China have risen to 59% this year from 50% in 2021. Positive views in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have risen to 57% this year from 47% and 41% respectively in 2021, while Thailand, Kenya and Nigeria showed similar jumps.

In Taiwan, majorities in about half of the countries surveyed – including Britain (51%), Australia (62%) and the United States (52%) – believed that “other countries should help Taiwan if China used force to annex the island. .

Chart

Sweden (55%), Denmark (51%) and, beyond the west, India (51%), Japan (55%), Kenya (63%) and Nigeria (60%) ) also show majorities, while in most other countries, including France, Germany, Spain and Poland, more people (38%, 43%, 38% and 40%) were in favor of aid to Taiwan (22%, 27%, 22% and 15%).

Support for a US-led alliance supplying heavy weapons or troops to Taiwan was generally weak, but providing intelligence or military advisers – and imposing heavy economic sanctions on China – was backed by at least 40 % of respondents in 10 out of 13 Western countries surveyed. .

Countries like Sweden, Poland, UK, USA, India and the three African countries of Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa were also willing to consider “war hybrid” such as cyberattacks and pro-Taiwanese messages.

“In other words, public opinion reflects a combination of two feelings,” Rogers de Waal said. “There is a predictable aversion to the prospect of a physical confrontation with China, but also considerable support for the cause of Taiwanese defense in principle.”

He said the African countries in the survey could also highlight another significant trend, with all three showing high levels of support for aiding Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, but also large majorities holding a view. positive about China’s role in world affairs.

“Public opinion is often not as binary as political debate might suggest,” Rogers de Waal said. “Many people may be able to hold both a sympathetic view of Taiwan’s defense and a favorable view of China as a powerful force within the international system – but not as an outright alternative. to this one.”

While the full digitization of criminal cases is also continuing separately, the aim is for all court hearings to be fully digitized by 2026.

While until now court files were stored both on paper and digitally in parallel, in future only the digital version will have legal value, while paper files will no longer be written anyway.

Justice Minister Lea Danilson-Järg (Isamaa) said the transition to a digital file will speed up the court process and make it more convenient for all participants in the proceedings.

The Minister said: “The digitization of court proceedings and the transition to digital records in civil and administrative cases is an important step in the development of the Estonian e-state, and was preceded by long and comprehensive preparatory work. .

“The courts have been preparing for the transition to a paperless procedure since 2017 – the corresponding software has been developed and new work processes have been practiced,” she continued.

“However, the ability to communicate with a court on paper will remain in place. When paper documents arrive, which is happening less and less frequently, they will be scanned and added to the files of the court information system.”

This decision will also make things clearer, more streamlined – given that there are sometimes differences between county courts and district courts in terms of the difference between paper and digital – and save money. money, added the Minister, noting that all parties to the proceedings and the courts can consult a file simultaneously, in the case of digital files.

Digitalization in general has made the Estonian judiciary very resilient to crises, as evidenced by the Covid pandemic, when court proceedings continued at their previous pace, while in many countries the work of courts was disrupted, often seriously.

The procedure will also serve as an example for other countries and is part of Estonia’s general status as an electronic pioneer state.

The transition to digital-only files in criminal cases will also follow.

“There is already a draft amendment to the Criminal Code under the Riigikogu process which creates a legal basis for digital procedure in criminal cases,” the minister added.

Estonia has been named a pioneer in the field of digitization of courts In a study conducted by the Nordic Council of Ministers this year, a comparative study recently published by the Council of Europe, the Digitization Index of the Estonian Judicial System is 9.79 on a ten-point scale, i.e. close to the maximum.

Around 27% of civil and administrative cases were handled without a paper file in 2019, while around 38% of all proceedings recorded in the court information system in 2020. Last year, the proportion of digital files had increased 53% in civil cases and 63% in administrative cases.

—

Follow the news of the ERR on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!