nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Widespread Fraud Lawsuit Settled for Former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Whistleblowers

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, 11 Sept 26

From 1946 to 1969, the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was used as the station for top-secret nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean. It was also the place where decontamination was done on the ships used in hydrogen bomb tests. Radioactive and toxic waste was disposed there.

In 1989 the shipyard was declared to be a Superfund site as a result of the high levels of toxic and radioactive waste from those operations.  The engineering firm, Tetra Tech EC, submitted false reporting to the U.S. Navy about the contamination.  https://www.tetratech.com/

In late August, a federal judge approved a $57 million settlement, plus interest, against Tetra Tech for breach of contract and for reporting false test results. Tetra Tech, a U.S. Navy contractor, was accused of widespread fraud in the cleanup of a 400-acre site where homes were razed to construct more than 10,000 homes in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. https://missionlocal.org/bayview/

In 2018, two Tetra Tech supervisors were charged with falsification of records and each were sentenced to eight months in federal prison.  

September 14, 2026 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C seeking appeal against environmental data transparency tribunal ruling

08 Sep, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hinkley-point-c-seeking-appeal-against-environmental-data-transparency-tribunal-ruling-08-09-2026/

EDF’s Hinkley Point C has told NCE it has requested permission to appeal against a tribunal ruling in favour of an argument from campaigners which would subject the nuclear power station to environmental information transparency rules.

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) decided on 26 June, following a hearing on 29 April, that NNB Generation Co (HPC) Ltd is a public authority according to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

NNB Generation Company (NNB GenCo) is the company that owns Hinkley Point C. EDF is the majority owner of the company, with China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) as a minority owner.

The EIRs are operated in a similar but different way to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had decided that NNB GenCo was subject to the EIRs after it made a ruling on behalf of environmental group Fish Legal, which was seeking environmental information about the nuclear power plant.

It announced its position in a decision notice published on 5 September 2024.

The ICO’s decision notice followed a complaint from Fish Legal, which represents anglers and has been repeatedly denied information from the developers of the nuclear power station about its methods of deterring fish from the site.

Hinkley Point C will require vast volumes of water to cool its nuclear reactors. Tunnels for water intake and outfall will circulate 120,000l of water per second. There are concerns this will lead to marine life being sucked into the system and killed.

NNB GenCo had a legal obligation to use an acoustic fish deterrent, based on its approved development consent order, but changed its plans to building a saltmarsh instead. It has now switched back to a plan for an acoustic fish deterrent, having discovered a new “safe and effective” method for implementing it.

Despite this, Fish Legal is continuing to support the ICO position because it covers matters broader than just the fish deterrent at Hinkley Point C – it believes that foreign-owned private companies building and operating nuclear power plants in the UK must comply with domestic environmental information laws and therefore provide details on environmental plans when asked.

A Hinkley Point C spokesperson told NCE: “We have now sought permission to appeal against the tribunal’s decision.

“Hinkley Point C has already made extensive amounts of environmental information available to the public and it will continue to keep stakeholders fully informed about the project.”

Reacting to Hinkley Point C’s decision to seek an appeal, Fish Legal head of policy and strategy Zoe Wedderburn-Day told NCE: “We are aware that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, has sought permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s decision and we will be watching developments closely.


“The Upper Tribunal judgment was an important decision for environmental transparency, confirming that a privately owned company entrusted with significant public functions and statutory powers can be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations.

“We will consider the implications of any further proceedings once the appeal position becomes clearer.”

An ICO spokesperson told NCE that the ICO noted the judgment but didn’t make any further comment.

Reacting to NNB Gen Co’s request for an appeal, Nuclear Industry Association chief executive Tom Greatrex told NCE: “The single biggest driver of biodiversity loss and habitat destruction is climate change.

“By delaying the deployment of nuclear power, which has the lowest carbon emissions, land use, and overall impact on ecosystems of any electricity source across its lifecycle, we are accelerating that damage and prolonging our reliance on higher-carbon energy sources.”

He added: “To reduce cost and accelerate delivery, we must ensure proportionate regulation.

“To achieve this, the government must fully implement the Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations to strengthen the UK’s energy security with clean power and enable new nuclear projects to progress at pace while maintaining high environmental standards.”

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

‘Bloodthirsty Psychopath’ Ben-Gvir Touts 2 Viewing Booths at Gallows for Palestinians

. The legislation changes the rules governing Israeli military courts in the illegally occupied West Bank so that the death penalty effectively applies only to Palestinians who kill Israelis.

Far-right Knesset members, including Ben-Gvir, wore noose-shaped lapel pins to show their support for the legislation. Ben-Gvir also handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading.

The vice president of the European Parliament condemned what she described as “a horrific spectacle that turns the death penalty into a show.”

by Brett Wilkins | Aug 21, 2026

Still drawing international censure for his genocidal call to kill dozens of Gazans daily, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir faced fresh condemnation Thursday after visiting the construction site of a gallows where Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis are set to be hanged to death, with select Israelis gathering as spectators.

Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Jewish Power party, posted a video to social media in which he gloats about the construction of gallows, which is being built in an undisclosed location in central Israel.

“I promised to worsen the conditions of terrorists in prisons – we kept it,” Ben-Gvir says in the video. “I promised to pass the Death Penalty for Terrorists law – we did. And now the death row and hanging facility are also starting to take shape.”

The law to which Ben-Gvir referred was passed in March by the Knesset – Israel’s parliament – and took effect the following month. The legislation changes the rules governing Israeli military courts in the illegally occupied West Bank so that the death penalty effectively applies only to Palestinians who kill Israelis.

Far-right Knesset members, including Ben-Gvir, wore noose-shaped lapel pins to show their support for the legislation. Ben-Gvir also handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading.

Ben-Gvir said the execution site would include viewing booths where victims’ families could watch executions, describing this as something customary in various countries and specifically citing the United States as an example.

“Terrorists deserve only one thing – death by hanging,” said Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 was convicted by an Israeli court of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization, whose leader he has openly honored.

Abdullah al-Zaghari, head of the Palestinian Prisoner Society, urged “effective international action” in response to Ben-Gvir’s comments. Al-Zaghari told Anadolu that the minister’s visit to the gallows site was part of the “continued determination of the Israeli occupation system” to codify incitement against Palestinians.

Leftist Israeli Knesset lawmaker Ofer Cassif excoriated Ben-Gvir’s actions.

“This criminal thug – a sympathizer of murderers of Palestinians, a supporter of terror, and a pathological racist – is also hopelessly infantile,” Cassif told The New Arab on Wednesday. “Soon we will oust him from the government, and next, throw him behind bars.”

European Parliament Vice President Pina Picierno accused Ben-Gvir of staging “a horrific spectacle that turns the death penalty into a show.”

The liberal US pro-Israel group J Street asked on X, “Are we supposed to believe, as some in the Jewish establishment would like us to, that Ben-Gvir’s words somehow tell us nothing about the country he helps govern?”

“He is Israel’s national security minister, and he is now celebrating a facility built to execute Palestinians while Jewish extremists are excluded from the law,” the group added. “As the old saying goes: When someone tells you who they are, believe them. When a government gives someone this much power, we have to reckon honestly with the agenda they are pushing.”

Ben-Gvir – who is under sanctions and banned from countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank – was still being denounced on Wednesday for advocating the daily mass killing of Palestinians, including civilians, in Gaza amid a nearly three-year war that United Nations experts, human rights groups, a South Africa-led case currently before the International Court of Justice, and many others call a genocide.

Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said Wednesday – which was World Humanitarian Day – that Ben-Gvir’s “remarks are appalling, they’re outrageous, they’re dehumanizing, they’re dangerous, and we condemn them unequivocally.”

A spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Wednesday in Berlin that Merz “strongly condemns Minister Ben-Gvir’s inhumane statements, which violate international law – they are unacceptable.”

“As the occupying power, Israel must treat Palestinians with dignity, protect their property, and ensure public administration and humanitarian aid,” the spokesperson added.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called Ben-Gvir’s remarks “unbearable and inhumane,” adding that “further sanctions could be imposed, and all options are on the table.”

In the United States, actor and activist Mark Ruffalo said Thursday on Bluesky that “Ben-Gvir is a bloodthirsty psychopath, war criminal, and one of Israel’s beloved genocidal leaders.”

“America and the world should be sanctioning, divesting, and boycotting Israel in every way until this apartheid regime falls,” he added.

The law to which Ben-Gvir referred was passed in March by the Knesset – Israel’s parliament – and took effect the following month. The legislation changes the rules governing Israeli military courts in the illegally occupied West Bank so that the death penalty effectivelyapplies only to Palestinianswho kill Israelis.

Far-right Knesset members, including Ben-Gvir, wore noose-shaped lapel pins to show their support for the legislation. Ben-Gvir also handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading.

Ben-Gvir said the execution site would include viewing boothswhere victims’ families could watch executions, describing this as something customary in various countries and specifically citing the United States as an example.

“Terrorists deserve only one thing – death by hanging,” said Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 wasconvictedby an Israeli court of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization, whose leader he has openly honored.

Abdullah al-Zaghari, head of the Palestinian Prisoner Society, urged “effective international action” in response to Ben-Gvir’s comments. Al-Zaghari told Anadolu that the minister’s visit to the gallows site was part of the “continued determination of the Israeli occupation system” to codify incitement against Palestinians.

Leftist Israeli Knesset lawmaker Ofer Cassif excoriated Ben-Gvir’s actions. Cassif toldThe New Arab on Wednesday:

September 3, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Evacuees from Fukushima nuclear meltdown reach settlement with Tepco

Aug 26, 2026, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/08/26/japan/crime-legal/tepco-fukushima-settlement/

SAPPORO – A total of 176 people who fled Fukushima Prefecture following the March 2011 nuclear disaster have reached a settlement with Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings in their damages lawsuit filed against the firm and the government.

The settlement was reached on Aug. 18 at the Sapporo High Court, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

All the plaintiffs withdrew their damages claims against the government. The decision came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling, and a series of similar court decisions that followed, that the government was not liable for the nuclear accident.

The plaintiffs evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to Hokkaido in the wake of the triple meltdown at the tsunami-stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant.

Under the settlement, Tepco apologized for the irreparable damage the plaintiffs suffered because of the accident.

The settlement amount was not disclosed. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said the sum was “not sufficient but took into account their claims to a certain extent.”

Seiichi Nakate, head of the plaintiffs, and his family evacuated from the city of Fukushima to Sapporo in 2012.

“The settlement is far from enough to make up for our indescribable suffering, but we decided (to accept it) because we cannot endure any more exhaustion,” he said.

In its March 2020 ruling, the Sapporo District Court ordered the government and Tepco to pay about ¥53 million in total to some of the plaintiffs, finding both liable for the accident. The plaintiffs, Tepco and the government all appealed the ruling.

September 2, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Legal | Leave a comment

125 countries legally bound to arrest Netanyahu as ICC warrant looms over Israeli PM: Report

Wednesday, 26 August 2026, https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/08/26/775092/125-countries-bound-to-arrest-Netanyahu-as-ICC-warrant-shadows-Israeli-PM–Hebrew-media

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a sweeping international travel restriction, with 125 countries legally bound by their membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) to arrest him if he enters their territory, according to a report.

Netanyahu “cannot visit today in 125 countries,” including major Western states that are among Israel’s closest allies and trading partners, the Hebrew edition of the Times of Israel, Zman Yisrael, reported on Monday.

The Israeli outlet said that the countries include France, Britain, Germany and Canada.

The restriction stems from an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in November 2024 against Netanyahu over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza which has killed at least 73,000 Palestinians, and wounded more than 17,000 others since it was waged in October 2023.

The Hague-based court holds Netanyahu responsible for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, as well as the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

The practical impact has already been visible in Netanyahu’s foreign travel, with his aircraft taking alternative routes to avoid the airspace of ICC member states.

Netanyahu has avoided events in countries where the warrant could be enforced, including the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, because Switzerland is an ICC member state, the report noted.

Since the warrant took effect, Netanyahu has visited only one ICC member state where the warrant applies, Hungary in April 2025.

The report said that the restriction is not merely a diplomatic inconvenience, writing that “if Netanyahu cannot visit most countries in the world, including most Western powers, it is impossible to see this as ‘a superior international standing’ — but rather international isolation.”

Netanyahu can technically travel to around 70 countries that are not members of the ICC, but the majority have no diplomatic relations with Israel or have strained ties with the regime.

Meanwhile, Washington has stepped up its pressure campaign against the ICC since the court issued the warrant, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the administration of US President Donald Trump was working to “dismantle” the tribunal.

The US has imposed sanctions on ICC officials involved in the Israel investigation and pressed the court’s member states to withdraw from the institution.

September 1, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Can the Israeli military be trusted to investigate itself? Evidence shows genuine accountability is rare

Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University, August 20, 2026, https://theconversation.com/can-the-israeli-military-be-trusted-to-investigate-itself-evidence-shows-genuine-accountability-is-rare-290142

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says it’s an “outrage” the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have decided not to open a criminal investigation into the Israeli strikes that killed an Australian aid worker, Zomi Frankcom, and six of her colleagues in Gaza in April 2024. He added:

It falls far short of the accountability that we expect and consistently called for on behalf of Australia.

International law is clear: states are obligated to investigate alleged war crimes committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory. And, if it’s appropriate, they are obligated to prosecute the suspects.

To this end, military and civilian leaders must report suspected breaches of the law up the chain of command to ensure prompt, independent and impartial investigations are carried out.

On Wednesday, the IDF published the findings of an internal investigation into five incidents in Gaza since the war began in October 2023.

Two incidents were deemed to raise “reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct”. The IDF ordered the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division, the primary investigative unit within the IDF, to open criminal probes into them. They are:

The killing of Hind Rajab, January 2024: The IDF acknowledged that soldiers opened fire on a vehicle carrying five-year-old Hind Rajab and her family as they fled Gaza City. In addition, the IDF said “a shell was fired toward” an ambulance trying to reach the car, killing two paramedics.

The killings of Palestinian rescue workers, March 2025: The review also referred the killings of 15 Palestinians in southern Gaza – some of whom it recognised as paramedics and medical personnel – to criminal investigators.

It said Israeli troops fired on three vehicles, which were later identified as ambulances, a fire truck and a UN vehicle.

Forensic Architecture, a research group at the University of London, alleges the military tried to cover up the killings by crushing and burying the medics’ vehicles.

The IDF investigators did not recommend further investigations into three other incidents, including:

The strikes on the World Central Kitchen convoy, April 2024: In addition to Frankcom, three British nationals, a Palestinian, a Pole and a dual US-Canadian citizen were killed when the IDF mistakenly identified their vehicles as carrying Hamas operatives.

The investigation found serious operational failures in the soldiers’ actions. Two commanders were stripped of their ranks and three officers were reprimanded. However, the review did not find “reasonable suspicion” of criminal conduct.

The other two incidents related to the killings of four employees of Médecins Sans Frontières in 2023 and 2024.

How often are Israeli soldiers prosecuted?

Statistically, very few complaints against IDF personnel result in investigations or criminal convictions.

The Israeli human rights group Yesh Din analysed complaints made to the IDF in 2019–20 and found 72% were closed without criminal investigation and just 2% led to prosecutions.

Another investigation of 52 Israeli military probes between 2023 and 2025 found 88% were either still under review or had been closed. Only one case had led to a prison sentence for an Israeli soldier.

What are the concerns with the IDF investigating itself?

Human Rights Watch has expressed serious concerns with IDF investigations into incidents involving Palestinian civilians. The group says they are “not impartial, thorough or timely”.

Cases often take months or years to navigate the IDF investigative process). Critics say this undermines the cases and diminishes the prospects for prosecutions.

Human Rights Watch reports that initial investigations largely rely on soldiers’ own accounts. The military advocate general, who advises the IDF during military operations, subsequently determines whether conduct should be criminally investigated or prosecuted.

Critics also argue that investigators frequently fail to contact readily available Palestinian witnesses, lack Arabic-speaking investigators, and rely heavily on Israeli NGOs to locate witnesses and obtain evidence.

Palestinian witnesses are often reluctant to cooperate in investigations because of fears of arrest, retaliation or mistreatment.

The military insists investigations are slowed by the difficulties of ensuring due process for its personnel in an active combat zone.

But rights groups say that by the time detectives are authorised to investigate, physical evidence is often long gone, the scenes have been compromised, and witnesses’ memories have faded.

That said, war crimes are not subject to any statutory limitation, meaning prosecutions can occur decades after an alleged offence.

What happens next in these cases?

The Hind Rajab and paramedic cases will now be transferred to military police for formal criminal investigations. They will collect forensic evidence, review communications logs and interrogate the soldiers and commanders involved.

Once complete, the investigation will be handed back to the military advocate general, who will decide whether to issue criminal indictments.

Structural legal barriers suggest, however, that the cases may not go anywhere.

Under Israeli military law, the legality of conduct in war must be assessed based on what a “reasonable commander” knew (or should have known) at the split-second the trigger was pulled. Did they honestly believe they were firing at a legitimate target?

Unless prosecutors can prove explicit intent to murder civilians, cases are often downgraded to “negligence” or closed entirely.

Lengthy proceedings can also create difficulties for eventual prosecution. As evidence becomes unavailable or less reliable over time, defence lawyers may argue that continued proceedings would prejudice their clients’ rights to a fair trial.

In some cases, concerns such as these can lead to reduced charges, plea agreements or the withdrawal of an indictment.

What other options exist?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is designed to be a “court of last resort”. This means it only steps in if a nation is “unwilling or unable” to genuinely carry out investigations of suspected war crimes.

Israel has long argued that its investigative procedures in cases such as these are both credible and independent.

However, international observers and groups like the Hind Rajab Foundation maintain these internal probes function primarily as a public relations shield rather than a pathway to genuine accountability for wrongdoing.

As Human Rights Watch has put it: “a system that overwhelmingly closes cases without accountability, years after the fact, and only in response to sustained international pressure, is not justice, it’s a whitewash”.

Cases like these could also be investigated and tried in other countries’ courts under what’s known in international law as universal jurisdiction.

This allows domestic courts to launch prosecutions, even when the countries have no link to the perpetrator, victim, national interest or territory where the incidents occurred.

These prosecutions can be supported by UN-appointed independent international commissions of inquiry. These fact-finding bodies collect evidence, interview witnesses and compile exhaustive archives of offences in war zones.

While these UN panels do not hold trials, their formalised, verified evidence files are designed to be handed over to foreign prosecutors or future tribunals.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Turn Off the Tap: New Mexico Supreme Court Grants Two Emergency Stays Against Project Jupiter

The Court has halted both the air-quality permit proceeding and the emergency authorization allowing groundwater to be used for Project Jupiter’s construction.

Elaine Cimino, Aug 24, 2026, https://elainecimino652909.substack.com/p/turn-off-the-tap-new-mexico-supreme?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3194544&post_id=212499998&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=281p2&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

On Sunday evening, August 23, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued two separate emergency stays affecting Project Jupiter—one stopping the air-quality permit proceeding and another stopping the use of water from a newly drilled well for construction.

These are significant victories for the residents, organizations and advocates fighting to protect New Mexico’s air, water and right to meaningful public participation.

Supreme Court stays the air-permit proceeding

In the first case, brought by New Energy Economy, the Supreme Court stayed the administrative proceeding involving Yucca Growth Infrastructure’s application for Air Quality Permit No. 10883.

The order states:

“The request to stay the underlying administrative proceeding is GRANTED, and the underlying administrative proceeding is hereby STAYED until further order of this Court.”

The case names Environment Secretary James Kenney, his designee John Rhoderick, the New Mexico Environment Department and hearing officer Max Shepherd as respondents.

New Energy Economy sought the emergency stay while the Court considers its verified petition for a writ of mandamus. The organization challenged the process being used to advance the massive air permit and the public’s ability to participate meaningfully in the proceeding.

The respondents must file their response by September 2, 2026.

Supreme Court turns off the tap

Minutes later, the Supreme Court issued a second order in a case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity against State Engineer Elizabeth Anderson.

That order stays the October 23, 2025 emergency drilling authorization permitting water from a new well to be used for Project Jupiter’s construction.

The Court ordered:

“The request for stay is GRANTED, and the October 23, 2025, emergency drilling authorization permitting the use of water from a new well for the construction of Project Jupiter is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.”

Santa Teresa Capital, LLC, is identified as the real party in interest.

The State Engineer’s response is also due by September 2, 2026.

Stop the air permit. Turn off the tap.

Together, these orders halt two critical parts of Project Jupiter’s approval and construction process:

  • The administrative air-quality permit proceeding is stayed.
  • The emergency authorization allowing groundwater from a new well to be used for construction is stayed.

These orders are not yet final decisions on the two petitions for writs of mandamus. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the ultimate merits of either case. But the Court has determined that both matters should be stopped while it considers the legal challenges.

That is a major procedural victory.

Project Jupiter cannot be allowed to advance through a pattern of concealment, rushed proceedings and emergency authorizations while communities are denied the information and time necessary to protect their air, water and health.

These two stays show why people must continue protesting, organizing, documenting and demanding accountability. Public resistance matters. Legal action matters. Refusing to accept an unjust process as inevitable matters.

Congratulations to Mariel Nanasi and New Energy Economy, the Center for Biological Diversity, attorneys Collin Cox and Gail Evans, the residents who protested outside NMED, and everyone who has fought to bring Project Jupiter into the light.

Two stays. Two critical resources protected.

Stop the air permit. Turn off the tap. The fight continues—but tonight, New Mexico’s communities have reason to celebrate.

August 28, 2026 Posted by | Legal | Leave a comment

Anglers win Hinkley information battle

Hinkley generation company must now respond to requests for information

Tuesday 18th August 2026,
https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/environment-news/angling-fishing-environment-hinkley-point-938586

An anglers’ pressure group has won a landmark legal ruling confirming that the company building Hinkley Point C cannot refuse to answer environmental information requests simply because it is privately owned.

A London tribunal ruled this week that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, must now respond to requests for information about the power station’s cooling water intake, environmental protection measures and possible environmental compensation.

A spokesperson for the pressure group Fish Legal, which uses environmental law to protect rivers, lakes and coastal fisheries on behalf of anglers, said: “The company must now either provide the information or identify specific legal grounds under environmental law for withholding it”

“The judgment confirms that when a private company is entrusted with major public functions and granted exceptional statutory powers, private ownership does not necessarily place its decisions beyond public scrutiny.

“The ruling may influence future cases involving other private companies exercising comparable functions and powers.”

Zoe Wedderburn-Day, head of policy and strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.

Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

Ms Wedcderburn-Day added: “This judgment does not decide which environmental protection technology should be used at Hinkley Point C. It confirms that NNB cannot avoid answering environmental information requests simply by saying that it is a private company.

“The immediate issue is whether the company will now provide the information or explain clearly why it believes any part of it should remain withheld.”

NNB may seek permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

August 23, 2026 Posted by | legal, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C subsidiary must comply with environmental information rules, UTT rules

“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

17.Aug.2026, Adam Carey, https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/information-law/398-information-law-news/101448-hinkley-point-c-subsidiary-must-comply-with-environmental-information-rules-utt-rules

The subsidiary responsible for a new nuclear power station currently under construction is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the Upper Tribunal (UTT) has ruled.

In NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKUT 241 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs dismissed an appeal by NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The case arose after NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for the power station known as ‘Hinkley Point C’, refused an information request from Fish Legal in March 2024. It refused to process the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) because it did not consider itself a public authority.

Fish Legal appealed the refusal to the Information Commissioner, which found that NNB was a public authority under regulation 2(2)(c) of the Regulations.

The FTT later confirmed that decision, leading NNB to appeal to the UTT on three grounds.

Following a hearing in April 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error on a point of law.

One of the main thrusts of the appeal centred on the FTT’s decision that NNB was vested with special powers.

NNB has a range of powers under its Development Consent Order and electricity licence, including powers of compulsory acquisition, entry, street works and works affecting watercourses, as well as harbour authority powers.

Jacobs J said the question was whether HPC had powers which were “not powers available to HPC as a matter of general private law”. Having those powers conferred “a practical advantage” on the company should it wish to use them, making them special powers.

This aspect of the judgment relied on the test for special powers set out by the Upper Tribunal in Fish Legal in 2015. That case concerned the application of the Environmental Information Regulations to bodies carrying out public administrative functions, including the question of whether they were vested with special powers.

Zoe Wedderburn-Day, Head of Policy and Strategy at Fish Legal, said: “The new government wants essential infrastructure built more quickly. Much of that programme will depend on private companies using powers granted to them by the state.

“Those companies cannot be given exceptional public powers and then close the door when people ask how the powers are being used. Public confidence depends on meaningful transparency and accountability.”

“Fish Legal established that basic legal principle for privatised water companies more than 10 years ago. The Upper Tribunal has now confirmed its relevance to the private company building Hinkley Point C.”

HPC must now respond to Fish Legal’s EIR or rely on specific EIR exemptions. The deadline to response is 20 August, with any application for permission to appeal due by 16 August.

August 21, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

US War on ICC Isn’t New, Isn’t Just Coming From GOP, and Isn’t Just About Israel

SCHEERPOST,  August 8, 2026, By Stephen Zunes

This is a disingenuous bipartisan effort to discredit the ICC and international humanitarian law as a whole.

The United States has launched an all-out assault on the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the past few weeks alone, the Trump administration has vowed to eradicate the top court, pressured countries to withdraw from it, and has attacked progressive political leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani who seek to carry out its mandates.

These attacks are jarring, but they are not new, are not only about Israel, and are not just coming from Republicans.

The renewed chorus of attacks began on July 13, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio renewed a U.S. attack on the court by announcing a plan to “dismantle” the ICC “brick by brick, if necessary.” Rubio claimed that, without such action, U.S. police officers or border patrol agents “could be dragged before an international court, tried by judges from random countries across the globe, found guilty under international laws we neither consent to nor control, and then imprisoned thousands of miles from America.”

This claim is utter nonsense. The ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by law enforcement officers in the United States. And while Rubio claims that the U.S. has not consented to the international humanitarian law that the ICC seeks to uphold, such law is actually drawn directly from binding treaties — including the Genocide Convention as well as the Geneva Conventions and related protocols, which the U.S. government has signed, ratified, and in many cases, incorporated into its own military manuals.

More revealing is Rubio’s complaint that the United States can’t “control” international law. No country can do that, nor should they be able to. The law is the law. As Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of Human Rights Watch, put it: “Law is meant to bind people, not be controlled by them.”

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal accompanying his official announcement from the State Department, Rubio claimed that the court is “run” by “hostile Third World governments united by their enmity toward the U.S.” This is also untrue. Virtually every European government is a member of the ICC. None of its 18 justices are from countries with hostile state relations with the U.S., and all but three of those countries are inarguably democracies. Of the 73 people indicted by the ICC, none of them have been Americans and only six of them have been associated with governments allied with the United States. 

Rubio’s attack was followed by continued attention on the court, this time from Mamdani, who called on federal authorities to act on an ICC warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and arrest him during a planned trip to New York later this year. In response, Mamdani was falsely accused of unfairly singling out Israel, even though he explicitly stated that his position would apply to “any other war criminals.” His focus on Netanyahu was simply because no other indicted war criminal was scheduled to visit his city.

Only two Israelis have ever been indicted by the ICC. This hasn’t stopped prominent U.S. politicians like Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) to insist that the court has an “anti-Israel bias.” Similarly, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey) has accused the ICC of a “continued, longstanding bias against the Jewish state,” and former Rep. Kathy Manning (D-North Carolina) has criticized what she referred to as its “efforts to single out and undermine Israel.”

What actually appears to bother these lawmakers is not the baseless claim that the ICC has an anti-Israel, anti-American, or anti-Western bias, but that it refuses to make exceptions for the United States and its allies. These demonstrably false statements from lawmakers reveal a disingenuous bipartisan effort to discredit the ICC and, by extension, international humanitarian law as a whole, in the eyes of the American public…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The post-World War II international legal system upon which the International Criminal Court is based was crafted by Western nations, particularly the idealists of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. While there are some reasonable critiques of the limitations of this “rules-based international order,” it at least sent a message — however unevenly these principles may have been enforced — that the killing of civilians, torture, territorial conquest, maltreatment of prisoners of war, apartheid, and genocide are illegal, and that perpetrators of these crimes should be held accountable. 

This is what Trump administration officials, members of Congress, and critics of Mamdani’s statement oppose. They are essentially rejecting the liberal international order in favor of a new system in which governments — at least the United States and its allies — are no longer bound by such principles. https://scheerpost.com/2026/08/08/us-war-on-icc-isnt-new-isnt-just-coming-from-gop-and-isnt-just-about-israel/

August 11, 2026 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Watchdog Sues for Plutonium Pit Production “Special Study”

Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 4 Aug 26, https://nukewatch.org/nuclear-weapons-watchdog-complaint-nnsa-pit-production-special-study

Santa Fe, NM – Nuclear Watch New Mexico has sued the Department of Energy under the Freedom of Information Act for its Special Study of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Leadership and Management of the Plutonium Pit Production Mission. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is the semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency within DOE.

Plutonium “pits” are the radioactive cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons. Their
expanded manufacturing has been the chokepoint of resumed industrial-scale nuclear
weapons production by the U.S. Crucially, no future pit production is to maintain the
safety and reliability of the existing stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear
weapons for the new arms race. These new weapons can’t be tested because of the
existing global testing moratorium, thereby perhaps degrading confidence in the
stockpile. Or new-design nuclear weapons testing could prompt the U.S. to resume
testing, which would have severe international proliferation consequences.
Plutonium pit production is the NNSA’s most expensive and complex program to date.
However, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly
stated that the agency has no credible costs estimates and no “Integrated Master
Schedule” for simultaneous production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
in northern New Mexico and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In fact,
DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement
and waste of taxpayers’ dollars since 1991. At more than $30 billion, the plutonium pit
plant at SRS is on track to become the most expensive building in U.S. history. A
comparable amount will be spent at LANL on facility upgrades and related projects, for
which the NNSA fails to keep total aggregated costs.

Even the Department of Energy recognizes how deeply troubled NNSA’s plutonium pit
production program is. In August 2025 DOE Deputy Secretary James Danly ordered the
“Special Study” completed within 120 days (i.e., mid-December 2025). On December 16,
2025, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. John Garamendi, both members of the Armed
Services Committees, unsuccessfully demanded the Special Study.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Special
Study on December 22, 2025. Having received no substantive response, in April 2026 we
requested expedited processing because of an open public comment period for a Pit
Production Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (that we had to sue NNSA for
to begin with). Having received no further response from DOE we have therefore filed
this litigation in the Washington, DC federal court.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico’s counsel is Jules Zacher, who has successfully represented
us in two previous FOIA lawsuits. Apart from his legal practice, Mr. Zacher is also
chairman of the Board of Directors of the Council for a Livable World, founder of
Citizens for Transparency and on the Executive Board of the Center for Ethics and Rule
of Law at the University of Pennsylvania. He commented, “This Special Study has not
been classified to my knowledge and was completed before the end of 2025. The
American taxpayer deserves to see it. It’s an exorbitant amount of money he and she is
being asked to bear for a deeply troubled and provocative program.”
Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, added, “There is a massive
coverup by DOE and NNSA over their plutonium pit production program. To grease
expanded nuclear weapons production, they have rescinded nuclear safety regulations,
illegally restricted the access of the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
and are withholding crucial documents from the American taxpayer. We hope this
lawsuit will help to bring NNSA’s plutonium house of cards tumbling down.”

August 5, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Court says NRC doesn’t have to factor climate extremes into licensing

July 21, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/court-says-nrc-doesnt-have-to-factor-climate-extremes-into-licensing/

In a shocking and disappointing decision — and at a time when Texas is flooding, wildfires are making the air unbreathable and New York City is under a tornado warning — a DC court has ruled against an appeal by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club. The court’s decision effectively allows the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ignore future (or even the clearly present) harsher and more violent climate change impacts on the safe operation of nuclear power plants, to which the NRC is presently awarding license extensions out to 60, 80 and even possibly 100 years.

Court decision to allow nuclear regulator to ignore climate impacts on future reactor operations does not serve public safety

Groups vow to continue their challenge to extreme reactor license extensions

A unanimous decision by three US Court Of Appeals judges in the District Of Columbia to deny an appeal based on the risks of climate change on nuclear reactor safety is a shocking disregard for the ever worsening weather conditions that could put reactor communities at grave risk, said Beyond Nuclear today, one of the groups that brought the appeal.

The petition denied by the court was brought by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club, against the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), et al. The NRC is federally mandated to protect public safety. The NEI is the lobbying arm and trade group representing the nuclear power industry.

The petitioners argued that the NRC and industry did not adequately consider how aging components and climate change would affect the risk of severe accidents involving reactor-core damage. Of greatest concern is the extension of operating the licenses of the country’s already aging nuclear power plants well beyond the initial 40-year licensing period and the NRC’s refusal to view the more extreme conditions caused by climate change as risk factors to future safe operation.

“We are stunned by the court’s decision, which let the NRC get away with the generalized claim that large conservatisms in their accident risk analyses can cover the unique and site-specific effects of climate change,” said attorney Diane Curran, who argued the case on behalf of Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club. “The NRC has never provided a shred of evidence to show that it has, in fact, evaluated the effects of climate change on accident risk — so how could it know that?”

Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear said, “This decision allows the NRC to consider future safety challenges to nuclear plants caused by worsening climate conditions by looking in the rear-view mirror. What we are already experiencing today with raging wildfires and extreme flooding, sea-level rise and more frequent violent storms due to climate change, sends a warning that evaluating reactor safety based on the worst climate conditions of the past is not only unrealistic but reckless.

“Just this past week we have seen extreme climate change-driven conditions with raging wildfires in Canada that could equally easily happen in the hotter United States and catastrophic flooding in Texas,” Gunter said. “It is shocking that the court accepted the NRC’s argument that under future climate conditions the chances of a severe accident are ‘small.’ Instead of evaluating the real risks, the court decided to adjudicate whether or not the NRC’s environmental review was ‘reasonably explained.’ This does not serve the interests of public safety,” Gunter said.

Beyond Nuclear is carefully evaluating its legal options and will continue to challenge the extreme license extensions at the Oconee (SC), Peach Bottom (PA) and North Anna (VA) nuclear power plants.

“Oconee is of particularly alarming concern because it sits downstream of two earthen rock-filled dams and two million acre feet of water,” Gunter pointed out. “In bringing this case, we were striving to ensure that this community does not become the tragic test case for a failure to guarantee robust safety regulations at our nation’s nuclear plants for the remainder of their operating lives.”

July 26, 2026 Posted by | climate change, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Iran accuses US of violating international law after strike on nuclear plant

Energy watchdog says Darkhovin nuclear plant symbolises Iranian nation’s dignity and self-reliance

MEE staff, Middle East Eye, 19 July 2026 

Iran’s nuclear energy watchdog condemned the United States for bombing the construction site of the Darkhovin Nuclear Power Plant.

In a statement, the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) said the US had targeted a symbol of the Iranian nation’s dignity and its efforts to achieve self-reliance.

“The terrorist and criminal US regime, whose nature is nothing but bullying and lawlessness, carried out an aggressive and barbaric act in violation of international law,” the organisation said in a statement.

The AEOI did not disclose the extent of the damage but described the attack as a violation of international law.

The power plant is located in Khuzestan province in southwestern Iran. Construction of the current reactor began in 2022 at a site on the Karun River, about 70km south of Ahvaz and roughly 100km north of the Persian Gulf.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was looking into reports of the overnight attack. 

“The facility is in the very early stages of construction and contained no nuclear material when last visited by the IAEA,” the UN agency said, adding that the attack is not believed to pose any radiological risk. 

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi reiterated a call for “military restraint in the vicinity of all nuclear-related sites”.

Earlier on Saturday, Iranian officials said Iran had withdrawn from a memorandum of understanding with the Trump administration after the US resumed its bombardment of the country.

Iran and the US have intensified their attacks since an interim ceasefire deal signed a month ago fell apart last week, raising the possibility of a return to all-out war.

US Central Command (Centcom) said the latest air strikes began at 6pm ET (10pm GMT) on Saturday at the direction of President Donald Trump……………………………………….https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-accuses-us-violating-international-law-after-strike-nuclear-plant

July 25, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

No, Israel Does Not Have ‘A Right To Exist’

there is no such right in international law. None. 

the International Court of Justice has repeatedly found that Israel has no right to claim self-defense in its attacks on occupied Palestinian territories. (In essence, you cannot break into someone’s house and then claim a right to self-defense when they resist you). 

 Unlike the Zionist claim that “Israel has a right to exist,” my assertion is rooted in international law. Of course, given Israel’s propensity for violating such laws, it’s no surprise they’re still claiming a right that has no basis in reality.

Mondoweiss, By Craig Mokhiber  July 14, 2026 

News that, in the midst of the genocide in Palestine, the German parliament was this week advancing legislation that would criminalize speech that denies that Israel has a “right to exist,” with penalties of up to five years in prison, came as a surprise to virtually no one. 

This is, after all, the same Germany that perpetrated genocide first in Namibia and then in Europe, and is now actively and enthusiastically participating in the ongoing genocide in Palestine while brutally repressing all who dare speak out against it inside Germany. 

Indeed, alongside Israel and the U.S., the German state today has the dubious distinction of being among those most captured by Zionist interests and most corrupted by Zionist ideology. 

The German state even has an official policy (Staatsräson) dedicating the German state to the continued existence of the Israeli regime, and a formal declaration of Israel’s “right to exist” is required to acquire German citizenship. (No such declaration of Germany’s right to exist is required). 

But the statement that the Israeli regime has no right to exist is not only a legally protected opinion. It is also demonstrably true, as a matter of both fact and law. 

Of course, the statement that Israel “has a right to exist” has always been nonsense, unrooted as it is in either law or fact. 

But this Zionist claim rings familiar to the ear of people in the West because it has been so often repeated as a pillar of Zionist propaganda, echoed by Western politicians benefiting from Israel lobby bribes, and by Israel-aligned media corporations dutifully buttressing the impunity of the regime. 

Ask yourself if you have ever heard a similar refrain asserting Italy’s right to exist, or Canada’s — or Germany’s, for that matter? And yet the claim is constantly made that the Israeli regime (and only the Israeli regime) somehow has such a right. 

The most obvious conclusion is that the regime and its proxies in the West are so deeply insecure about the legitimacy of the state, given the lawless and bloody history of its founding and expansion, that they have deemed it necessary to impose an enforced (and fictional) orthodoxy, rooted in an idea of Israeli exceptionalism and state-sponsored impunity.

But there is no such right in international law. None. 

Inconvenient facts

Indeed, when I first entered the corridors of the United Nations in the 1980s, many states then existed that no longer existed when I left in 2023. Did the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, and the United Arab Republic have a “right to exist?” No. And neither does Israel. 

States come and go, but none of them has a “right to exist.” As a factual matter, this is undeniable. 

And yet, some still actively parrot the baseless Zionist fabrication that the Israeli regime somehow possesses it, others accept it without question, some (like Germany) even seek to compel others to declare it, and still others prohibit any attempts to challenge the lie. 

There is no “right to exist” for states under international law. Thus, Israel cannot claim such a right. 

Of course, states do have some rights. For example, states normally have a right to sovereign equality, to territorial integrity, and to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But even these rights normally afforded to states are subject to conditions and qualifications, many of which would exclude Israel’s claim to them. 

For example, the International Court of Justice has repeatedly found that Israel has no right to claim self-defense in its attacks on occupied Palestinian territories. (In essence, you cannot break into someone’s house and then claim a right to self-defense when they resist you). 

Its 1949 “Green Line” with Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza, is not an international border, but rather an armistice line merely meant to separate forces. The regime cannot claim it as a lawful border. 

Moreover, given that the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force is a jus cogens norm (the highest, peremptory rules) of international law and a binding obligation under the UN Charter, it cannot claim any of that land as part of its lawful territory. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Even a cursory examination of international law reveals that, to the contrary, the Israeli regime should not exist.

The international community of states has obligations to cease recognition of the regime, to isolate it, and to work for its dismantlement and for the liberation of the Palestinian people from the regime. 

Clearly, no one would today argue that Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa, or Vichy France, or Khmer Rouge Kampuchea had a “right to exist.” Nor would we entertain claims for eternal colonial regimes in Algeria, India, Namibia, or Kenya. For the same reasons, no legal (or moral) argument could justify a right to exist for Zionist Israel. 

To the contrary, international law requires that, where breaches of peremptory norms of international law are integral to the creation, expansion, and sustaining of a state (as was the case in apartheid Namibia and Rhodesia), such entities should not be recognized or accepted as legitimate states and should in no way be assisted. 

Israel’s record is clear. It was founded on the breach of two peremptory (jus cogens) norms: the right to self-determination of the people of the land, and the rule on the non-acquisition of territory by force, as well as on the two highest crimes in international law: genocide and aggression.   

Since then, it has refused the return of refugees and their compensation, and has continuously expanded its unlawful evictions, land theft, and colonization. 

The United Nations and every major international human rights organization have concluded that the Israeli regime is guilty of apartheid and racial segregation, unlawful occupation, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. 

The regime is now on trial for genocide at the ICJ, charges that the Court has found plausible enough to issue a series of preliminary orders (all of which the regime has ignored). 

And the same Court has found the regime guilty of unlawful occupation, the forced denial of self-determination, the unlawful acquisition of territory by force, war crimes, apartheid, and racial segregation. 

And the International Criminal Court has indicted the regime’s leaders for crimes against humanity. 

For the full eighty years of its existence, the Israeli regime has held the distinction of being in breach of the highest number of UN resolutions and ICJ decisions of any country on the planet. 

Today, the regime is unlawfully occupying Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, attacking Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and beyond, and perpetrating genocide in Palestine. 

It has carried out assassinations across the region and has admitted to (indeed, bragged about) transnational terrorist attacks with booby-trapped pagers in Lebanon

Judged against the imperatives of international law, Israel is, in the strictest sense of the term, a rogue regime, illegitimate in its founding, and devoid of all legitimacy in its conduct ever since. 

To declare that such a regime has a “right to exist” is an affront to generations of its victims, to international law, and to human decency itself. And the threat that it poses extends far beyond Palestine.

The Israeli regime is driven by a deeply racist and fundamentally violent ideology. It is armed with advanced technologies of surveillance and death, holds powerful conventional weaponry, and possesses stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. 

It has declared policies mandating the mass murder of civilians (the Dahiya Doctrine), the killing of its own citizens (the Hannibal Directive), and the potential nuclear destruction of the world (the Samson Option). 

Its spies are active in countries around the globe, and its proxies are actively engaged in corrupting governments and institutions across the West. 

Does such a regime have a “right to exist?” No. 

In fact, dismantling such a regime and its replacement with a free Palestine with equal rights for all is not only a legal requirement, but also an existential imperative for all of humanity.  https://mondoweiss.net/2026/07/no-israel-does-not-have-a-right-to-exist-quite-the-contrary-actually/

July 20, 2026 Posted by | Legal | Leave a comment

Fearing Justice: Rubio Gets Bolshie About the International Criminal Court (ICC)

15 July 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/fearing-justice-rubio-gets-bolshie-about-the-icc/

Why are they so afraid? The Trump administration, pathologically obsessed about the exaggerated reach of the International Criminal Court, have decided to take to the barricades. In a July 13 media note released by a spokesperson for the US State Department, something akin to a declaration of war was made against the Hague-based tribunal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was getting bolshie about it, announcing “a sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by [the court] to US sovereignty.” The effort promises to “feature a whole-of-government response to systematically disable the ICC’s ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”

The late Henry Kissinger, who argued most stridently against the establishment of such a criminal court, would no doubt have approved. He, more than most, would have feared some eventual accounting for his own egregious crimes against international humanitarian law while serving the White House.

The alarmist tone of the announcement is palpable. The ICC was seeking “to become an unaccountable global arbiter – positioning itself above and beyond the nation state as a supranational enforcement arm of a globalist bureaucracy empowered to prosecute American servicemen and officials at will.” (This has a whiff of familiarity to it, given that the Department of Justice under Trump’s steering hand has been prosecuting, at will, individuals perceived to have wronged him in the past.)

The media release is filled with careless distortions and ugly inaccuracies, not least in the sovereignty it purports to understand and defend. The ICC, for instance, “claims authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest.” The body claims no explicit power to do so, given that jurisdiction is only exercisable over State Parties. The United States, in company with such states as Russia, China, India and Israel, have not appended their signatures to the Rome Statute.

It follows that no such threat is credible except in instances when the service personnel of such countries conduct war on the territory of a State Party. For that reason, arrest warrants have been issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu, his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Even then, enforcing such warrants, as the record shows, remains patchy and vulnerable to the political and legal interpretations offered by member states.

US military personnel have, similarly, caught the eye of the ICC in 2020 for its activities in Afghanistan, though the subsequent investigation also focused on alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and Afghan government it replaced. It took only a year for the ICC to essentially abandon the American aspect of the investigation and focus, instead, on the alleged transgressions of the Taliban and the former Afghan government.

Rubio’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal is also cratered with an embarrassing inability to understand the role of a tribunal that has the support, however imperfect, of 125 member states. He regards the judges as hailing from “random countries”; the court and its allies as determined to seek “near-unlimited reach, empowered to override the courts and constitutions of the US and other sovereign states – and to prosecute and arrest our citizens.”

Failing to mention the shift in focus of the 2020 investigation into alleged infractions against international law in Afghanistan, he took grave exception to the remarks of the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, that American authorities had been tardy in conducting their own prosecutions. “In effect,” snorts Rubio, “Ms Bensouda was anointing herself the final judge of US military policy and the entire US justice system.” Hardly.

A somewhat hysterical note is struck in Rubio’s assessment of the court’s supporters. Like a sinister fifth column of operatives, the tribunal “is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist nongovernment organizations, smug globalists, and hostile Third World governments united by their enmity towards the US.” For the most part, the Secretary tries to make good the image of the American republic as a bullying, thuggish nation state indifferent to the strictures of law.

He cannot understand the fuss made about the extrajudicial murders of alleged “narcoterrorists” in Latin America and the Caribbean, the shoddy practices of the administration in deporting “violent criminals to El Salvador,” or that organisations might wish that “apparent war crimes” committed against Iran by the US might be investigated. “Independence is our birthright,” he pompously asserts. “We don’t intend to trade it for rule by a self-appointed priesthood of ‘international law.’” It was therefore incumbent that Washington work along with allies to “dismantle the ICC – brick by brick, if necessary.”

This dismantling effort seems hyperbolic. The Trump administration has already sought to blunt the court’s functions and hound its officials. Even before Rubio’s announcement, the administration has been aggressively seeking to stem the reach of the court and the effectiveness of its officials. On February 6, 2025, for instance, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14203, allowing the sanctioning of any person or organisation engaged in any efforts of the ICC “to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality.”

Protected persons include, among others, current and former members of the US Armed Forces; current or former elected or appointed officials of US government; and any other person currently or formerly employed or working on behalf of the US government. The personnel of US allies also fall within the definition.

The sanctions listed in the order included the blocking of property and assets within the United States “as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan was the first to be designated as a sanctioned individual, though the list would swell to include members of the judiciary, including Second Vice-President Reine Alapini-Gansou from Benin, Uganda’s Solomy Balungi Bossa, Peru’s Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza and Slovenia’s Beti Hohler.

The Open Society Justice Initiative accurately notes the effect of such sanctions, being “tantamount to a financial death penalty.” These entail the freezing of US assets in bank accounts, a denial of access to credit cards, relevant online platforms, banking services and health insurance, and the inability to attend speaking engagements in the US. Three of the sitting judges – Bossa, Alapini-Gansou and Canada’s Kimberly Prost are seeking declaratory and injunctive relieve against Executive Order 14203 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The State Department media note suggests more of the same, flavoured with a villainous menace. The entire US government diplomatic corps is to become a public relations arm “highlighting the abuses of the ICC and the risks posed to Americans” and urging member states to withdraw from the Rome Statute. Nations with partnering arrangements with American law enforcement and the military, and those enjoying “the benefits of the US security umbrella” will also be pressed “to reject the ICC’s purported authority to prosecute American officials and servicemen.”

States refusing to reject the authority of the ICC while still relying on American assistance would be subjected to greater scrutiny, while countries not a party to the Rome Statute would be encouraged to “leverage their diplomatic networks to take similar actions alongside us.” ICC personnel would be subjected to continued visa revocations and travel bans, while the tribunal and “affiliated organizations” will be subjected to further sanctions. It will be a time for war criminals and offenders of international law to rejoice.

All institutions, supposedly underpinned by protocols and principles, are at the mercy of Trump’s broad reading of executive power, one fickle and petulant. His office has also become a source of obscene self-enrichment, inuring this administration to giddying levels of corruption. “I’ve made money, I’ve made a tremendous amount of money, more than I would have ever thought I would have made,” he boasts. For a person who relishes breaching laws and flouting regulations, it is little wonder he, along with his insufferable cronies, have such an animus against a world court that, for all its faults and blemishes, remains a worthy project in international law and human rights.

July 19, 2026 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries