Legal « nuclear-news

Pike County mom sues revived nuclear plant, alleging radiation led to daughter’s death

by: Katie Millard, Dec 29, 2025, https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/pike-county/pike-county-mom-sues-revived-nuclear-plant-alleging-radiation-led-to-daughters-death/

Julia Dunham is suing Centrus Energy in a wrongful death case after her daughter, Cheyenne Dunham, died in 2015. Julia sued Centrus Energy Corp within two months of becoming the administrator of Cheyenne’s estate in October, alleging radiation from a nearby nuclear plant, now managed by Centrus, was responsible for Cheyenne’s death.

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in south central Ohio was formerly run by the U.S. government and shut down in 2001 after decades of environmental concerns. In September, Centrus Energy announced it will expand the former uranium plant and bring 300 new jobs in uranium enrichment. See previous coverage of the plant in the video player above (- on original)

Pike County residents said they are still getting sick from past U.S. uranium enrichment on the site. The Dunham’s lawsuit is one of many that blame the uranium plant for illness or death.

According to the lawsuit, the Dunhams lived near the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant until Cheyenne was a teenager. The lawsuit said she played in creeks and regularly ate food grown in gardens near the plant throughout her childhood.

Cheyenne also spent three years enrolled at Zahn’s Corner Middle School, about two miles from the uranium plant. The school served more than 300 students in Piketon until its abrupt closure in 2019, when officials shuttered the building due to health concerns after enriched uranium was detected in school buildings.

According to the lawsuit, Cheyenne began experiencing health issues when she turned 16. One day, the lawsuit alleged, her legs turned blue and she was taken to the emergency room. Doctors found blood clots in her legs and lungs, and she was diagnosed with GATA Deficiency, a rare condition that effects a person’s blood and immune system.

Cheyenne underwent two bone marrow transplants to avoid developing leukemia but became very sick in February 2015 after her second transplant, according to the lawsuit. By May, her body rejected the transplant, and she died in November 2015 of her illness, her death certificate showed. The lawsuit alleges her health issues were a direct result of Cheyenne’s proximity to the uranium plant.

The lawsuit included studies of the area around the uranium plant that show high levels of radiation, and data tracking cancer rates in Ohio. One exhibit, a study by a Morgantown, West Virginia, doctor, found cancer rates in people under age 25 who lived in proximity to the uranium plant were three times higher than in other Ohio sample groups.

Julia Dunham is requesting a trial by jury and monetary damages for Cheyenne’s funeral and medical costs, as well as emotional damages to Cheyenne’s loved ones. Julia filed the lawsuit on Nov. 24, 2025, almost 10 years to the day after Cheyenne’s death.

Julia was involved in another lawsuit filed in 2019, where she and four other parents sued the plant on behalf of their children. That parents allege the uranium plant released radiation that contaminated their properties, endangering their kids and living spaces. The court dismissed all claims on behalf of minor children for lack of standing, but the case is otherwise ongoing.

Centrus plans began domestic manufacturing on Dec. 19 to support its Piketon facility and has begun design work on a major training, operations and maintenance facility at the site. Centrus Energy hopes to begin its updated uranium enrichment work in 2029 once site renovations are complete. The nuclear work is slotted to help the U.S. regain energy dominance and stop reliance on other countries.

January 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Rambling Toward Chaos: Trump and the Nuclear Precipice

Louis Rene Beres, Jurist News, January 30, 2026

The author, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue University, argues that President Trump’s unchecked nuclear command authority, combined with his demonstrated preference for ‘attitude’ over strategic preparation and his alignment with Russian aggression, has made an American president the principal threat of nuclear war for the first time in history…

“I tell you, ye have still chaos in you.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

On January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced the hands of its “doomsday clock” to eighty-five seconds before midnight. This unprecedented move signified that the world has never been closer to nuclear war. Ipso facto, there could be no more urgent metaphor for planet earth.

But even the Bulletin’s 2026 Doomsday Clock statement stopped short of drawing the most politically sensitive conclusion: For the first time in history, the principal threat of nuclear war is an American president. More precisely, during the continuously dissembling Trump presidency,[1] the immediate casus belli atomicum is apt to be presidential miscalculation, psychological breakdown, cognitive impairment (including transient dementia) or outright irrationality.

There are many pertinent details. Somehow, since the start of the Cold War, the notion that the constitutional commander-in-chief should be able to launch US nuclear weapons on his own authority has been widely accepted by Americans. This is the case even though any such presumed authority would be unconstitutional prima facie.

Legal issues aside, there are no convincing strategic arguments for assigning the president effectively unchecked nuclear command authority. Today, credible US nuclear deterrence lies less in “hair trigger” nuclear readiness than was the case during the Cold War. Now, at least with regard to expectedly-rational nuclear adversaries, the plausibility of an “assuredly destructive” US nuclear retaliation lies beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is more. At some point, if a no-longer defensible enlargement of presidential military authority were to remain in force, a triumvirate of Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and Stephen Miller could have final say on both national and planetary survival.[2] Could such a scenario be anything less than a hideous caricature of American and human progress? A prophetic answer was supplied by the ancient Roman philosopher Tertullian: “Credo quia absurdum.” “I believe because it is absurd.”

What have been determinable trajectories? When Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, prospects for a nuclear war were increased. Since the start of “Trump II,” the president has announced plans to resume nuclear weapons testing and enlarge America’s nuclear forces. Regarding his “plan for peace” in Ukraine, his proposal turned out to be an abjectly lawless surrender of a victim state to a Russian aggressor. In essence, Trump’s self-adoring plan was to reward Vladimir Putin’s Nuremberg-category crimes[3] (crimes of war; crimes against peace; crimes against humanity). Significantly, as an utterly incontestable principle of law and justice, no US president (or any other head of state) has the right to support an aggressor state over a victim state.

In a world afflicted by multiple and intersecting existential threats, nothing is more urgent than nuclear war avoidance. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of capable scholars and strategists engaged in supporting this goal to raise appropriate questions.[4] How could such thinkers best meet this indispensable goal? The answer lies in reason-based replies to the following interrelated questions:

What intolerable nuclear hazards could arise under President Trump?

How might these hazards involve US foreign relations, international law, national survival and stable world futures?

Looking ahead three more years, the always-underlying nuclear danger will be an unqualified American president who conspicuously values presumed personal advantage over authentic national security…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/01/rambling-toward-chaos-trump-and-the-nuclear-precipice/

January 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer’s attempt to send Abramovich’s billions to Ukraine is illegal

the government does not have the powers unilaterally to send those funds to Ukraine as that would amount to theft.

British law has nothing to say about how Abramovich disposes of his assets and the British Government has no role in the discussion of how they are disposed of. For now, those assets remains frozen and Keir Starmer is seeking to unfreeze them so they be sent in entirety to Ukraine without Abramovich’s consent.

Frozen assets are not a slush fund that he can dip into because he’s too weak to tell British taxpayers they have to pay for a war doesn’t want to end

Ian Proud, Dec 24, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/keir-starmers-attempt-to-send-abramovichs?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=182490948&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I didn’t authorise the UK sanctioning of Roman Abramovich in March 2022, but I did authorise over 800 other designations of Russian individuals and firms, while I was still at the Foreign Office. I have no connection with the oligarch, nor do I support Chelsea. But I am alarmed by Keir Starmer’s threat to take him to court over the disposal of the proceeds from the Blues’ sale. This appears illegal and doomed to fail.

On 17 December, Starmer stood up in Parliament and said, “my message to Abramovich is . . . the clock is ticking, honour the commitment you made and pay up now. If you don’t, we’re prepared to go to court so every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.’

Abramovich was sanctioned by the UK government on 10 March 2022. Under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 all of his assets in the UK were frozen and remain so to this day. He was also subject to other restrictive measures including a director disqualification (i.e. he cannot operate as a director of a UK firm such as Chelsea) and a travel ban.

The practical impact of sanctioning Abramovich was to tip Chelsea into a short-term cash crunch, because the football club’s (i.e. Abramovich’s) assets were frozen. Chelsea’s spending became tightly regulated by a licence issued by the Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) at the Treasury. This forced Abramovich to divest his assets which he did in May 2022 when the club was purchased by a consortium led by Todd Boehly. The proceeds of the sale have been frozen ever since.

Clearly, the sale proved the technical effectiveness of the UK sanctions regime at that time. Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary had made it her quest to close ‘Londongrad’, the catch-all term for very high net worth Russian oligarchs who had parked their money in Britain. Forcing Abramovich to sell Chelsea, which he purchased in 2003, was undoubtedly a feather in her cap in terms of how it played out in UK press coverage.

Yet sanctions policy is governed by law not spin.

With pressure to rid Britain of the taint of Russian money building after the war in Ukraine started on 24 February 2022, Abramovich no doubt saw the writing on the wall and announced his decision to sell the club on 2 March.

In doing so, he pledged to donate “all net proceeds from the sale” to the “victims of the war in Ukraine”.

It was and appears to remain Abramovich’s intention that while much of the money would go to Ukrainian victims of the war, some might also go to victims in other countries, including in Russia.

When he made this announcement, UK lobbyists immediately urged the British government to insist that the funds only go to Ukraine, expressing fears that some money may end up with Russian victims of the war, including former Russian armed forces personnel. It is this pressure which has undoubtedly led the government to take the position that it has.

Yet, Abramovich was not legally required to sell Chelsea nor to donate the proceeds to good causes. His moves appear driven, more, by a desire to insulate the Club from financial disruption and philanthropy.

That’s why Starmer’s pronouncements appear little more than virtue signalling; advancing what he sees as a moral crusade to punish a wealthy Russian under the spurious guise of upholding UK sanctions law.

Yet British law has nothing to say about how Abramovich disposes of his assets and the British Government has no role in the discussion of how they are disposed of. For now, those assets remains frozen and Keir Starmer is seeking to unfreeze them so they be sent in entirety to Ukraine without Abramovich’s consent.

While freezing Abramovich’s assets had a legal basis under the Russia Regulations 2019, attempting to strong-arm him into sending frozen assets to Ukraine is illegal.

Sanctions are not intended to be permanent. It is still far from clear when the Ukraine war will end, but should a peace agreement be sealed and held to, it is conceivable that UK sanctions would be lifted in the future. Should that happen, Abramovich would one day again have access to his capital, including the proceeds from the Chelsea sale, and be free to use it as he pleased.

Of all the oligarchs, Abramovich was most active in supporting efforts to end the Ukraine war, even attending the failed Istanbul peace talks in March and April 2022. His offer to give the Chelsea proceeds to a charitable cause was consistent with his peace efforts but was not legally binding.

It was also unique, as no other sanctioned oligarchs who were previously based in the UK have offered to do the same.

The UK has frozen over £25 bn in Russian assets since the war started; the government does not have the powers unilaterally to send those funds to Ukraine as that would amount to theft. Had the similarly sanctioned oligarch Mikhail Fridman chosen to sell Holland and Barret in 2022, which was owned by his investment firm Letter One, the government could not have insisted that the proceeds be sent to Ukraine in the form of vitamin supplements and health-improving nuts.

The government now issuing a licence to allow for the Chelsea billions to be sent to Ukraine does not impose any requirement on Abramovich to use that licence. The sanctions licencing system exists to allow designated persons to access their frozen assets to meet essential costs. Mikhail Fridman famously complained that the freezing of his assets forced him to ask the government for money ‘to use taxis and buy food’.

The licencing system isn’t designed to provide a slush fund for the government to support good causes overseas. Licences are requested by the designated person and their legal representatives.

This case boils down to two broad themes, neither of which reflect well on the embattled Starmer.

First, a tug of war between what seems right and what is legal. With Ukraine critically short of money – even after Europe’s mega-loan – sending them the Chelsea billions may feel like the right thing to do, but is illegal.

Second, this is another attempt to use sanctioned assets to cover the unsustainable cost of Ukraine’s failing war and so avoid asking British taxpayers to shoulder the burden, at a time when ordinary people are struggling to pay their bills at Christmas.

On the second, the Europeans have already died on a similar hill through their failed attempt to expropriate Russian sovereign assets held in Euroclear. Keir Starmer should ditch his performative threats as legal action against Abramovich would most likely fail if, that is, the UK still has an independent judiciary.

If Starmer wants to waste another pile of British cash in Ukraine, then he should do so and put himself before the court of public opinion. He won’t, though, as he’s weak, deeply unpopular and runs from hard choices faster even than Santa’s sleigh on Christmas Eve.

December 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Fukushima Now (29) – Part 1: What Constitutes Responsibility?

by Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center · December 21, 2025, By Yamaguchi Yukio, https://cnic.jp/english/?p=8747

n the 14 and a half years that have passed since March 2011, the cesium-137 that was released has finally made it to the halfway point of its half-life. After 90 years, its radioactive concentration will have diminished to one-eighth its initial level, and after 300 years, one-thousandth. According to the current medium-to-long-term roadmap, decommissioning measures should be completed around 2041 to 2051. Even by then, however, the radioactivity will have decreased only by a little more than half. Not even what these “decommissioning measures” are supposed to include has been decided on yet.

In places with serious radioactive contamination, nobody will be able to live there for another century. The area thus affected is said to exceed 300 square kilometers. The first sample of fuel debris taken from the Unit 2 reactor weighed 0.7 grams, and the second, 0.2 grams. The information gained from their analysis is just as miniscule. Meanwhile, the total amount of fuel debris in the Unit 1-3 reactors is estimated at 880 tons. Whether it will be necessary to retrieve all of it to begin with is a matter of great contention.

Idogawa Katsutaka, who was mayor of Futaba Town at the time of the accident, evacuated the entire town to protect everyone there from radioactive exposure, leading many of them as far as 250 kilometers away to Kazo City, Saitama Prefecture, near Tokyo, where they took refuge in a gymnasium that had belonged to the town’s former Kisai High School. This was just one of the municipalities that evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to escape radioactivity. The town’s population totaled 6,971 people overall, of whom 187 took refuge at the former Kisai High School (as of September 18, 2012). Details of their evacuation were relayed widely around the world by the 2012 film “Nuclear Nation” (Japanese: “Futaba kara Toku Hanarete,” directed by Funahashi Atsushi, music by Sakamoto Ryuichi).

As of 1 August 2025, the registered population of Futaba Town had dwindled to 5,157 in all, of whom 59 percent were living within Fukushima Prefecture and 41 percent were still evacuees elsewhere among 43 of Japan’s 47 prefectures. Idogawa’s hope is, “We want somehow to go home, all of us, together, to a safe hometown.” The number of returnees so far, however, is a mere 87 people (as of August 2025).

■ Idogawa filed suit in May 2015 against the government of Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), seeking 755 million yen in damages. A decision on the case was rendered on 30 July 2025 in Tokyo District Court, finding no responsibility on the part of the government, but ordering TEPCO to pay compensation of about 100 million yen for damages to real estate and compensation for the evacuations.

The reasoning behind this decision was that even if the government had required TEPCO to take measures against a possible tsunami, there was a good likelihood that a similar accident could have occurred anyway, so the government bore no responsibility for it. This followed the precedent of a Supreme Court’s ruling on 17 June 2022 denying the government’s responsibility.

Nor did they recognize Idogawa’s claim that his health had been damaged by his exposure in the course of evacuating. This angered Idogawa, who called it a terrible decision against a person who had faithfully fallen in line with Japan’s atomic energy administration.

I think what caused this tragic nuclear accident, unprecedented in scale, was Japan’s fundamentally flawed nuclear power system, adopted by the government in the name of “peaceful use of the atom.” It can only be called a huge transgression by the politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, and business leaders of that time on account of their lackadaisical inattention to safety.

The theory of plate tectonics teaches us not to expect to see broad regions of stability, free from concerns about earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic activity in the Japanese archipelago. We are only part way toward clarifying the causes and circumstances of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Despite this, the government is ignoring the lessons of history and clearly announcing a “nuclear renaissance” in its 7^th Strategic Energy Plan. Even if it intends to “put safety first” as a condition, it cannot create safety measures if it has yet to elucidate the causes of the accident. This is no way to ensure “safety first.” It’s a contradiction.

Establishing nuclear power plants in the Japanese archipelago in itself is a mistake. The first chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority publicly stated that even if the new safety standards created in 2012 were fulfilled, it would not guarantee safety. Even now, the phrase “safety first” commonly uttered by nuclear proponents is a fiction and can only be called irresponsible.

December 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health, Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

The Problem with Machado: Assange Sues the Nobel Foundation.

21 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-problem-with-machado-assange-sues-the-nobel-foundation/

The Swedish police have promised it will go nowhere, but the attempt by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to draw attention to the inappropriateness of María Corina Machado as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient raises a few salient matters. On December 17, Assange submitted a criminal complaint to the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and Swedish Crimes Unit. The legal complaint is directed against the Nobel Foundation, arguing that the pending transfer of 11 million SEK ($US 1.18 million) and the award of the prize medal to Machado violates the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will of November 27, 1895.

The will, binding under the terms of Swedish law, stipulates that the award of the prize and monies be given to a person who, during the preceding year, “conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” in pursuing “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Given that the peace prize laureates are selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, seeking to hold them accountable for their poor choice of awardee might have been a better starting point. But the complaint is alert to this, noting that the Swedish funds administrators have a fiduciary duty when it comes to disbursing the funds. “The Norwegian committee’s selection does not grant them criminal immunity.” Indeed, it was up to the administrators to consider such a decision made “in flagrant conflict with the explicit purpose of the will, or where there is evidence that the awardee will use or is using the prize to promote or facilitate the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.”

Whatever the administrative minutiae, Assange’s effort is worth noting. Machado has become the unsavoury alternative to the Venezuelan incumbent, Nicolás Maduro, a figure who refused to accept the electoral returns for his opposing number, Edmundo González, in July 2024. González was essentially a pick by Machado, who has emerged as the empurpled, plumed candidate seeking Maduro’s overthrow. That she was the 2025 choice of prize recipient was galling enough for 21 Norwegian peace organisations to boycott the ceremony and prompt Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel to remark that, “Giving the prize to someone who calls for foreign invasion is a mockery of Alfred Nobel’s will.”

Machado has made no secret of her approval of the buildup of US military personnel (around 15,000) off the coast of Venezuela since August, including a nuclear-powered attack submarine and the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford. She has “incited and defended the Trump administration’s use of lethal military force and preparation for war.” The US military has already committed, charges Assange, “undeniable war crimes, including the lethal targeting of civilian boats and survivors at sea, which has killed at least 95 people.” (President Donald Trump has liberally designated such individuals narco-terrorists.) The Central Intelligence Agency has been authorised to conduct covert actions in Venezuela. Parts of the Venezuelan military have been classified by the Trump administration as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO).

Since Assange submitted his complaint, Trump has ordered a complete blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering or exiting Venezuela. The US has thus far seized two tankers, though the authorities have failed to distinguish which tankers are sanctioned or otherwise. The Panama-flagged Centuries, for instance, was not officially sanctioned by the US, showing that this administration is not one to be, as US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth put it, legally tepid.

A list of incitements to war by Machado are enumerated. They include the dedication of the award to President Trump for having “Venezuela in where it should be, in terms of a priority for United States national security”; a heartfelt endorsement of US military escalation as maybe being “the only way” in dealing with Maduro; warm appreciation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “decisions and resolute actions in the course of the [Gaza] war” and the endorsement of extrajudicial killing of civilian boats in the Caribbean Sea as “visionary”. Hardly the résumé for a peacemaker.

Assange argues that the failure of the funds administrators to stop pertinent disbursements to Machado, in light of the material submitted in the complaint, “indicates ongoing criminal intent.” Such funds aided “a conspiracy to murder civilians,” violated national sovereignty through using military force and advanced resource theft (Machado’s promised reward to US firms of oil and gas resources amounting to US$1.7 trillion). In doing so, Nobel’s will and charitable purpose had been violated through “gross misappropriation, aiding international crimes […] and conspiracy.” They also breached Sweden’s obligations under the Rome Statute. By way of remedy, the “immediate freezing of all remaining funds and a full criminal investigation lest the Nobel Peace Prize be permanently converted from an instrument of peace into an instrument of war” was sought.

In an email to AFP, Swedish detective inspector Rikard Ekman showed little interest in taking the matter up. “As I have decided not to initiate a preliminary investigation, no investigation will be conducted on the basis of the complaint.”

While this complaint remains a purist’s attempt to return the peace prize to a more conventional reading (Assange thinks the UN Secretary General António Guterres and UN human rights chief Volker Turk eminently more suitable candidates), the practice of awarding this inflated award to figures of ill-repute and sullied reputation will be hard to shake. The ghost of former US security advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a man lauded for bringing peace to Indochina when he covertly indulged illegal bombing campaigns, not to mention war crimes, torture and an assortment of other blood sports, continues to loom large. It might well be time to abolish the Nobel Peace Prize altogether, and the committee responsible for it. It was never a strong indicator of merit, even if it offers the chance for some very dark humour for the reptiles to revel in.

December 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, Sweden | Leave a comment

Julian Assange: Sweden Broke Own Laws With Nobel Prize to Venezuela’s Machado

The same dynamic is at play in the Caribbean once again, according to Assange, as the Nobel Committee crowns a Venezuelan politician best known for her unhinged appeals for foreign military intervention and her dedication of her Nobel victory to US President Donald Trump.

Max Blumenthal and Wyatt Reed, The Grayzone, December 17, 2025

By awarding its peace prize to Trump’s favorite Venezuelan opposition figure, pro-war coup plotter Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Committee contravened the principles enshrined in its founding documents, as well as Swedish law, Julian Assange alleged in an explosive brief reviewed by The Grayzone.

The Swedish government violated its own laws by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado, according to an explosive legal brief filed by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder and former political prisoner who was hounded across the globe, confined in harsh conditions, and subjected to physical and psychological torment over the course of a decade by the US and its allies.

The Nobel committee’s decision to award Machado the Peace Prize — and the 11 million Swedish Kroner ($1.18 million USD) reward which accompanies it — means that “there is a real risk that funds derived from Nobel’s endowment have been or will be… diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,” Assange stated.

The Wikileaks founder pointed to the “ample public statements… showing that the U.S. government and María Corina Machado have exploited the authority of the prize to provide them with a casus moralis for war,” adding that the explicitly stated purpose of the war sought by Machado and her wealthy Latin American backers would be “installing her by force in order to plunder $1.7 trillion in Venezuelan oil and other resources.”

The Nobel Foundation stands accused of a number of violations of Swedish criminal law, including breach of trust, misappropriation and gross misappropriation, conspiracy, crimes against international law, as well as financing of aggression, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and breaching Sweden’s stated obligations under the Rome Statute, to which Stockholm says it is “deeply committed.”

Under Swedish law, “Alfred Nobel’s endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war,” Assange noted. “Nor can it be used as a tool in foreign military intervention. Venezuela, whatever the status of its political system, is no exception.”

By granting Nobel funds to Machado, Assange argues that the Committee is effectively financing “a conspiracy to murder civilians, to violate national sovereignty using military force…” By refusing to end payments, “they flagrantly violate Nobel’s will and clearly cross the threshold into criminality,” he alleged. The Wikileaks co-founder seeks the “immediate freezing of all remaining funds and a full criminal investigation” into Committee members who awarded the prize.

The Nobel Prizes were established in 1901 according to Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel’s last will and testament, which was later incorporated into the Swedish and Norwegian legal systems. The Peace Prize, which is meant to be bestowed on the figure who has contributed most to “fraternity between nations,” the “abolition or reduction of standing armies,” and “the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” has served as a cornerstone of Scandinavian soft power ever since.

Since its inception, however, the prize was marred by controversy due to the violent legacy of its recipients, and the political ambitions of its Norwegian sponsors. In the case of one of the Prize’s first winners, US President Theodore Roosevelt, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was criticized at the time for overlooking the American statesman’s naked warmongering in Latin America in order to curry favor with the nascent US empire. The New York Times sardonically observed that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded … to the most warlike citizen of these United States.”

As Assange explained, Trump’s massive buildup of US military forces off the coast of Venezuela “has already committed undeniable war crimes, including the lethal targeting of civilian boats and survivors at sea, which has killed at least 95 people.”

“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights labeled these U.S. coastal strikes against civilian boats “extrajudicial executions,” the Wikileaks co-founder wrote. And the “principal architect of this aggression” was none other than Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who “nominated María Corina Machado for the peace prize.”

Norwegian Nobel judges tied to influential Venezuelan regime change lobbyist

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a figure as clearly unqualified as Machado – and in apparent violation of Swedish law – raised questions about whether the Committee had been influenced by powerful outside interests. Machado’s nomination for the prize by the US Secretary of State had an undeniable impact on the decision, as the Nobel ceremony serves as a central channel of Norwegian soft power. But inside Oslo, a political powerbroker determined to return to power in his family’s native Venezuela may have also played a role in swinging votes for Machado. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The odds of Machado winning surged from 3.75% to 72.8% just hours before the Nobel Committee officially informed Machado of her victory. One unusually prescient bettor won $65,000 gambling on the Venezuelan opposition figure. “It seems we have been prey to a criminal actor who wants to earn money on our information,” said Kristian Berg Harpviken, the head of the Nobel Institute.

Months later, The Nobel committee still has yet to conclude its investigation into the corruption scandal. As of publication, the committee did not respond to a request for comment by The Grayzone.

For what promotes itself as the world’s premiere peacemaking institution, it may be too late to undo the damage wrought by giving the Nobel Prize to an avowed champion of violent regime change.

“Using her elevated position as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado may well have” already “tipped the balance in favor of war,” Assange concluded. https://thegrayzone.com/2025/12/17/julian-assange-sweden-nobel-venezuelas-machado/

December 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, Sweden | Leave a comment

Council battling illegal work near nuclear site.

Niki Hinman, Local Democracy Reporting Service, 17 Dec 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g583jlpl3o

A council continues to gather evidence to prosecute those responsible for an illegal development near a nuclear weapons site.

Work has been carried out on land opposite the Atomic Weapons Establishment’s (AWE) Aldermaston campus despite a temporary stop notice, West Berkshire Council said.

Hundreds of people have signed an online petition that states the work has left others feeling “unsafe, anxious and unprotected”, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The authority said the applicant has not submitted additional information to make it a valid application and so it is not being considered.

Neither the council nor the police have legal powers to remove individuals or items from the land and the council says the relevant civil legal processes must be followed to enable this.

“The temporary stop notice remains in force,” a council spokesperson said.

“Any activity that breaches it is a criminal offence, and officers are continuing to gather evidence to support potential prosecution.”

December 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

US Relied on Illegal Sanctions to Seize Venezuelan Oil Tanker

December 15, 2025 By Marjorie Cohn, https://scheerpost.com/2025/12/15/us-relied-on-illegal-sanctions-to-seize-venezuelan-oil-tanker/

This article was originally published by Truthout

US armed forces’ seizure of the oil tanker constituted an unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter.

“We have just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela — a large tanker, very large, the largest one ever seized actually,” Donald Trump told reporters on December 10, describing the escalation of his apparently impending illegal war and regime change in Venezuela. Attorney General Pam Bondi ceremoniously released a video clip of the U.S. Marines and National Guard rappelling down from two helicopters onto the tanker.

In seizing the “Skipper,” the Trump administration relied on sanctions the U.S. had imposed on the Venezuelan oil tanker. Bondi said a seizure warrant was executed by the U.S. Coast Guard, FBI, Pentagon, and Homeland Security Investigations. “For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations,” she stated.

But those sanctions are illegal and cannot provide a lawful basis for the U.S. to seize this vessel.

Only the Security Council Is Authorized to Impose Sanctions

Although claims in the corporate media that Venezuelan oil is subject to “international sanctions” are ubiquitous, nothing could be further from the truth.

When a country takes it upon itself to impose sanctions without Security Council approval, they are called unilateral coercive measures, which violate the UN Charter.

The U.S. government imposed unilateral coercive measures on the oil tanker in 2022 for its alleged ties to Iran. But the UN Charter empowers only the Security Council to impose and enforce sanctions. Article 41 specifies:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

“Under international law, we cannot lawfully enforce U.S. domestic law in a foreign state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles) or contiguous zone (next 12 miles out, to total 24) without the coastal state’s consent,” Jordan Paust, professor emeritus at University of Houston Law Center and former captain in the U.S. Army JAG Corps, told Truthout.

Francisco Rodriguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, concurs. “The US has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory,” he posted on X. “The seizure of ships in international waters to extraterritorially enforce US sanctions is a dangerous precedent and a violation of international law.”

“Nor can we lawfully do so on a foreign flag vessel there or on the high seas without the flag state’s consent — all absent any international legal justification under the law of war during an actual ‘armed conflict’ or under Article 51 of the UN Charter in case of an actual ‘armed attack,’” Paust added.

Although there are allegations that the Skipper was operating under a false flag, Trump made clear in his December 10 statement that it was in Venezuela’s territorial sea or contiguous zone, not on “the high seas.” Moreover, a senior military official told CBS News that the tanker had just left a port in Venezuela when it was seized.

The Seizure Was an Illegal Act of Aggression

At first blush, it appears that the U.S. military committed piracy when it seized the Skipper. But piracy is defined by Article 101 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as acts committed for private purposes by a private aircraft or ship. State-sponsored or military actions can constitute acts of war or violations of sovereignty, but not piracy.

The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force except in self-defense after an armed attack under Article 51 or when approved by the Security Council, neither of which was present before the seizure of the Skipper. Nor was the U.S. engaged in armed conflict with Venezuela.

General Assembly Resolution 3314 sets forth the definition of “aggression,” which has been adopted by the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

The seizure of the oil tanker by the U.S. armed forces constituted an unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter. It was therefore an act of aggression.

This aggression comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s extrajudicial executions (murders) of some 87 alleged drug traffickers on more than 20 small boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. In all likelihood, the administration doesn’t even know the identity of the victims, nor has it provided any evidence that they were trafficking in narcotics. Even if it had, due process requires arrest, not murder.

The U.S. has seized “sanctioned” oil in the past, during the first Trump administration and the Biden administration as well. But, according to The New York Times, it is not a common practice and “rarely becomes a public spectacle.”

Meanwhile, the administration is engaging in the largest military buildup of U.S. firepower in the Caribbean in decades, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the biggest aircraft carrier in the world. Trump declared a no-fly-zone over Venezuela. And the administration recently added significant combat equipment to that already present in the region.

On December 11, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed additional sanctions on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, targeting his relatives and six shipping companies operating in Venezuela’s oil sector.

If U.S. Regime Change Succeeds in Venezuela, Cuba May Be Next

Trump has clearly stated his intention to attack Venezuela, and his administration has signaled that it aims to change Venezuela’s regime, with opposition leader María Corina Machado waiting in the wings. Hours after it seized the Skipper, the U.S. helped Machado leave Venezuela and travel to Norway to receive the Nobel “Peace” Prize.

Maduro called the seizure of the tanker what it really is: “It has always been about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people.” Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

This seizure could be the first act in the U.S. imposition of an oil blockade on Venezuela. Such a blockade “would shut down the entire economy,” former Biden administration Latin America adviser Juan González told the Guardian.

“Because Venezuela is so dependent on oil, they could not resist that very long,” retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel and senior adviser at think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies Mark Cancian, told the BBC. It would be “an act of war.”

The oil tanker had offloaded a small amount of its oil to a smaller ship headed for Cuba and then proceeded east toward Asia before the tanker was seized by the U.S. That seizure “is part of the US escalation aimed at hampering Venezuela’s legitimate right to freely use and trade its natural resources with other nations, including the supplies of hydrocarbons to Cuba,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, architect of Trump’s Venezuela regime change strategy, has long had the Cuban government in his sights. “Their theory of change involves cutting off all support to Cuba,” González told The New York Times. “Under this approach, once Venezuela goes, Cuba will follow.”

For decades, Cuba has suffered under unilateral coercive measures in the form of an economic blockade, which was also imposed by the U.S. in violation of the UN Charter.

Forcible regime change is illegal. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Likewise, the Charter of the Organization of American States forbids any state from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another state. And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to self-determination.

Trump’s new National Security Strategy contains the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, signaling a return to U.S. military interventions in Latin America. The strategy states:

We want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States; we want a Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations.

Washington’s brutal anti-immigrant policies and false accusations that Venezuela is sending drugs to harm the U.S. are consistent with this strategy. And implicit in the strategy is the key goal of U.S. access to Venezuela’s rich oil deposits.

December 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear power: the courts put a stop to the project for two EPR2 reactors at Bugey

December 10, 2025

“ It’s a dramatic turn of events ” against the project to build two EPR2 reactors in the Ain region. Speaking by phone, Jean-Pierre Collet, from the Sortir du nucléaire ( SDN ) Bugey network, made no secret of his satisfaction. On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, the Lyon Administrative Court
overturned amendments to urban planning documents—
the SCOT ( Regional Planning Scheme ) in February 2023 and
the PLU ( Local Urban Development Plan ) in September 2024—that would have allowed the construction of these two new reactors on the EDF site at Bugey.

This decision follows a hearing on November 18th and sides with the anti-nuclear group Sortir du nucléaire Bugey and several residents. The court ruled that the ecological impact had not been sufficiently considered, particularly the presence of numerous protected species and the proximity of the Natura 2000 site of Isle Crémieux.

This decision comes as the project was already underway, with archaeological excavations already begun, according to Jean-Pierre Collet. A public debate held in early 2025 took place in a heated atmosphere, with the team in charge of organizing the debates lamenting the lack of data on the actual cost of the new facilities.

“
The construction site is suspended for a while,” Jean-Pierre Collet rejoiced.
“This shows that even on large-scale projects, you can’t ignore the rules. There are urban planning regulations, you can’t pretend they don’t exist. For us, this is very good news. ”……………………………………………………………………… https://reporterre.net/Nucleaire-la-justice-met-un-coup-d-arret-au-projet-de-deux-EPR2-au-Bugey

December 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, Legal | Leave a comment

High Court challenge to Sizewell C ‘cannot be right’, court told.

Lawyers representing the developers and government suggest the challenge could set a precedent for major infrastructure.

A High Court will decide on Friday whether to grant a judicial review of safety changes to nuclear project Sizewell C that could force developers to reapply for consent. The
project’s defence team claimed in court on Tuesday that the judgment will have an impact on how large-scale infrastructure adaptations are challenged in future. “It simply cannot be right for major infrastructure projects like this to face challenge every time it becomes possible that some
additional adaptation measure might be needed at some point into the distant future,” a defence lawyer on the side of developers and government said during a court hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing was held atthe Royal Courts of Justice to determine whether the nuclear plant, scheduled to be developed in Suffolk, can go ahead without a proper review
of two new overland flood barriers. Campaigners previously argued that the project lacked proper sea defences, and at the behest of the UK’s nuclear regulator, French developer EDF has since included plans for two new overland flood barriers, without releasing the details for public review through a formal assessment. At stake is whether the development consent
order would need to be revisited to accommodate the changes.

Energy Voice 12th Dec 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/586858/high-court-challenge-to-sizewell-c-cannot-be-right-court-told/

December 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Disappointing news from the High Court, to Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) are extremely disappointed to advise of today’s decision by the judge, to refuse permission for a judicial review in relation to Sizewell C’s secret additional sea defences. In TASC’s view, it is immoral to proceed with Sizewell C in the knowledge that the project, as approved in the development consent order, is not resilient to an extreme sea level rise scenario. This will result in future generations having to pick up the pieces from ill-thought out decisions made today.
Future generations need government to move forward with sustainable development, not questionable climate change solutions, such as Sizewell C, which come with hidden risks that have been denied public scrutiny, assessment and full consideration of alternatives.

TASC 12th Dec 2025, https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sizewell-c-legal-challenge/

December 14, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C sea defences at centre of High Court challenge

A campaign group against the project is due to raise concerns about flooding and rising sea levels.

Jasmine Oak, 10th Dec 2025, https://www.hellorayo.co.uk/greatest-hits/norfolk/news/sizewell-c-sea-defences-at-centre-of-high-court-challenge

A campaign group opposing the Sizewell C nuclear power station is due to challenge the government in the High Court over concerns about flooding and sea level rise.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) will appear in court today (Tuesday, the 9th December), when a judge will decide whether the group can proceed to a full judicial review against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.

The legal challenge focuses on two additional sea defences that Sizewell C Ltd has committed to installing but were not included in the original planning application for the project.

Chris Wilson, from Together Against Sizewell C, said the hearing is a “permission hearing where the judge will decide whether we can go to a full judicial review”.

He said the group discovered at the end of 2024 that Sizewell C Ltd had committed to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to install additional coastal defences to prevent flooding in extreme sea-level rise scenarios.

“What we subsequently found out was that these additional sea defences had been known about by EDF, who put in the planning application for Sizewell C,” he said.

“They’ve known about them since 2015, and in 2017 they’d actually carried out an assessment for the platform height for Sizewell C, which is particularly relevant for flood protection.”

What’s the importance of these defences not being reviewed?

Mr Wilson said the approved platform height of 7.3 metres meant that, in an extreme sea level rise scenario caused by climate change, additional flood defences would be required.

He said these defences were not part of the original Development Consent Order (DCO) and had therefore not been assessed for their environmental or community impact.

“Sizewell C has been approved and got DCO approval to be built, but it doesn’t include these additional sea defences,” he said.

“That means they’ve never been assessed as to their environmental impact or impact on other places, like RSPB Minsmere or the village of Sizewell.”

According to Mr Wilson, one of the proposed sea defences could extend around 500 metres across the land.

Infrastructure across Suffolk

He also raised concerns about the concentration of energy infrastructure in east Suffolk.

“To have 30% of the whole nation’s energy infrastructure in one small area of Suffolk, with the wind farm infrastructure and Sizewell C, it doesn’t provide security of supply in our mind,” he said.

“It just seems to be a big target for someone who wants to disrupt us.”

Mr Wilson said the cumulative impact of ongoing and planned developments was already affecting the area.

“The area of outstanding natural beauty has long been recognised as a very special place, and it’s just been decimated by all the works going on at the moment,” he said.

He added that further infrastructure, including a proposed water pipeline, could disrupt residents’ lives and damage the local tourism economy.

Chris Wilson also expressed concern for future generations. He said decisions taken now would have long-term consequences in Suffolk and beyond.

He warned that delaying scrutiny of the additional sea defences could leave those in the future facing greater environmental damage, higher financial costs and fewer options. He said any infrastructure with a lifespan stretching into the next century should be fully assessed for climate change impacts from the outset, arguing that failure to do so risks passing the burden of unresolved problems, including coastal erosion and flood protection, onto people not yet born.”

What they want to see

TASC argues the Secretary of State should reconsider or amend the project’s consent order to allow for public scrutiny of the defences before construction continues.

Mr Wilson said the group wants the government to “actually listen to those that have raised concerns and have an objective review” of whether Sizewell C is needed.

He said: “If it was determined it was, which I don’t think it would be, there are other options. We’ve got renewables plus storage that could meet the requirement quicker and cheaper.”

Government response

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has previously said Sizewell C would provide secure, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes once operational.

The High Court will decide on Tuesday whether TASC can proceed to a full judicial review of the government’s decision.

Mr Wilson said he hoped the judge would allow the challenge to continue.

“I just hope that the judge can see the validity of our arguments and that we get a full judicial review hearing,” he said.

December 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Activists fight plans for nuclear power station over threat to rare bird.

Ed Miliband’s plans to build the Sizewell C nuclear power station are facing a High Court legal threat over claims it will destroy a rare bird habitat.

Activists are seeking a judicial review to force the Government to revisit plans for the project, which they say is being built on land occupied by endangered marsh harriers. In a hearing on Tuesday, the Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) campaign group raised concerns over Sizewell C’s plans to build 10-metre-high flood defences on Suffolk marshland.

They argue that this will threaten the marsh harrier, a rare
bird that was almost driven to extinction before enjoying a recovery in recent years, particularly alongside the Suffolk coastline.

The group claims that details of the flood defences were Activists fight plans omitted from the original planning proposals in 2022. This now forms the basis of the group’s
argument, as it claims that work on Sizewell C should be paused while a further environmental assessment is carried out.

Chris Wilson, of TASC, said: “TASC’s legal challenge focuses on two additional sea defences that Sizewell C has committed to installing – but despite EDF, who is building Sizewell, being aware of the potential need for them since 2015,
they were not included in their planning application for the project.

Rowan Smith, the solicitor at Leigh Day representing TASC, said: “The failure to assess these impacts was alarming. “Our client is concerned about the revelation that provisions have been made for further flood defences at Sizewell C, which could harm the environment, yet the impact of this has never been assessed.”

Telegraph 9th Dec 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/09/activists-nuclear-power-station-threat-rare-bird/

December 11, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Hegseth ‘Responsible’ for ‘Murder’: Family Files Formal Complaint Over Killing of Colombian Fisherman.

According to the official filing, Trump’s Defense Secretary “has admitted that he gave such orders despite the fact that he did not know the identity of those being targeted for these bombings and extra-judicial killings.”

Jon Queally, Dec 03, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/hegseth-murder-boat-strikes

The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina, believed killed by the US military in a boat bombing in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 15, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of murder over the unlawful attack.

“From numerous news reports, we know that [Hegseth] was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like those of Alejandro Carranza and the murder of all those on such boats,” reads the petition, filed Tuesday on behalf of Carranza’s family by Dan Kovalik, a human rights attorney based in Pittsburgh.

The complaint also notes that President Donald Trump, the commander in chief of the US military, “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein.”

First reported on by The Guardian, the filing of the petition with the IACHR—an autonomous body under the charter of Organization of American States (OAS) designed to uphold human rights in the Western Hemisphere—could result in the initiation of an investigation and the release of findings about the bombing that took the life of Carranza and two other individuals believed to be aboard the vessel.

The petition, the outlet noted, “marks the first formal complaint over the airstrikes by the Trump administration against suspected drug boats, attacks that the White House says are justified under a novel interpretation of law.” Experts in international human rights law have stated from the outset that the administration’s justifications lack legal basis and that the attacks constitute unlawful criminal acts.

According to The Guardian:

Carranza, 42, appears to have been killed in the second strike of the Trump administration’s bombing campaign, on 15 September. The administration has publicly disclosed 21 strikes on alleged drug boats. Carranza’s family says he was a fisher who would often set out in search of marlin and tuna.

On the day of the strike, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that “This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility”. Trump attached video marked “unclassified” of a small boat floating in the water before it was struck.

Both Hegseth, the highest-ranked civilian at the Pentagon, and Trump have been under growing scrutiny for the series of boat bombings that have resulted in the extrajudicial killing of over 80 people since September. Experts have said the killings should be seen as “murder, plain and simple.”

New revelations about a strike on Sept. 2, in which two survivors of an initial bombing were later killed as they clung to the exploded boat on which they were traveling, has evelated that concern in Washington, DC this week with lawmakers seeking answers about the attack which, even if one accepted the legality of the initial strike under the construct the Trump administration has tried to claim, would constitute a clear human rights violation amounting to a war crime.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in October, Katerine Hernandez, Carranza’s wife in Colombia, said her husband was “a good man” devoted to fishing and providing for his family. “Why did they just take his life like that?” she asked.

Hernandez denies that Carranza was involved in drug trafficking, as Trump and Hegseth have alleged without providing evidence, but also suggested that even if drug trafficking was taking place, it would not justify his murder. “The fishermen have the right to live,” she said. “Why didn’t they just detain them?”

In a Tuesday statement, the IACHR urged the US government to “ensure respect for human rights” during any and all extraterritorial military operations in the region, noting the deaths of a high number of persons both in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, where other strikes have taken place.

“While acknowledging the seriousness of organized crime and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights, the Commission recalls that States are obliged to respect and ensure the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction,” the statement reads.

“According to the Inter-American jurisprudence, this duty extends to situations when State agents exercise authority or effective control, including extraterritorial actions at sea,” it continues. “When lethal force is used by security or military personnel outside national territory, States have the obligation to demonstrate that such actions were strictly lawful, necessary, and proportionate, and to investigate, ex officio, any resulting loss of life. These obligations persist irrespective of where the operations occur, or the status attributed to the individuals affected. Likewise, persons under State control must always enjoy full respect for due process and humane treatment.”

The commission called on the US to “refrain from employing lethal military force in the context of public security operations, ensuring that any counter-crime or security operation fully complies with international human rights standards; conduct prompt, impartial, and independent investigations into all deaths and detentions resulting from these actions; and adopt effective measures to prevent recurrence”

December 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)’s new legal challenge against Sizewell C’s secret flood defences.

4 Dec 25, https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sizewell-c-legal-challenge/

The Sizewell C site will be storing up to 4,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel on this vulnerable coastline until the late 2100s. The precautionary principle should surely apply so resilience, potential risks and impacts are assessed on a worst case basis and that should be done now. Sizewell C Ltd seem to believe they can do as they see fit with our Heritage Coast, National Landscape and designated wildlife sites irrespective of the damage they will cause.

On Tuesday 9 December Together Against Sizewell C has a permission hearing at the High Court for their case about the overland flood barriers.

The project now includes a stated commitment by Sizewell C Ltd to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to install additional sea defences in a ‘credible maximum’ climate change scenario. These defences in the form of two huge 10 metre high ‘overland flood barriers’ were not included in the approved DCO project. In our opinion, these flood barriers, if installed, will likely have additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring designated wildlife sites including RSPB Minsmere as well as the Heritage Coast and Suffolk Coast & Heaths National Landscape. We need to ensure that the original promotor EDF and the now UK government controlled Sizewell C Ltd are not allowed to use climate change uncertainties as an excuse to delay assessment and avoid public scrutiny of these additional structures for decades. The full impact of the whole project should be assessed now.

There is very little detail about the barriers, but it appears from the above diagram [on original] that, if needed:-

The Southern barrier stretches for nearly 500 metres from the Sizewell A site, across the Sizewell Gap to the start of the cliffs running south to Thorpeness, sited on land not in Sizewell C’s ownership.

The Northern barrier potentially stretches from the north of the Sizewell C site, through the SSSI, then inland over Goose Hill for up to a kilometre.

Together with our lawyers, Leigh Day, we have sought the High Court’s permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse TASC’s request to revoke or vary the Sizewell C DCO. The grounds for our legal challenge are set out in Leigh Day’s press release.

How we got here

From documents obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, TASC found out that EDF knew as far back as 2017 that their chosen nuclear platform height of 7.3m AOD would, along with the adapted sea wall on the eastern flank of the site, require two 10-metre high ‘overland flood barriers’. These will be needed to prevent the nuclear platform from flooding from the west in the event that sea level rise reaches a ‘credible maximum’ scenario. This will lead to a major breach of the low-lying coast to the north of Sizewell C and south of the Sizewell nuclear cluster. However, while EDF rightly included the adaptive design of the eastern sea defences in their DCO application documents, they did not include the southern and northern overland flood barriers in the DCO application, thereby avoiding any public scrutiny. As a result there is no commitment in the approved DCO to install these additional sea defences. This is despite there being a requirement to keep the nuclear site safe for its full lifetime from climate change impacts in a credible maximum scenario i.e. to, at least, 2160 while spent nuclear fuel is stored on site.

TASC’s aim is to ensure that the overland flood barriers, not included by EDF in the DCO application, now form part of the overall project. Therefore we need the Secretary of State to either revoke or change the DCO, in order that a lawful assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the entire project is carried out and subject to public scrutiny.

This is important because the project may be grossly underestimating the potential environmental impact, flood risk and sea-defence costs. This, if unaddressed, could be a major burden on future and far future generations who may be impacted by severe, non-reversible environmental, ecological and human impacts combined with an extreme financial liability if Sizewell C were to flood.

Further background for those that want to know more

The Sizewell C project, originally promoted by EDF, is to build twin EPR nuclear reactors close to the North Sea at Sizewell, Suffolk, one of the fastest eroding coastlines in Europe. The site is in the heart of Suffolk Coast & Heaths National Landscape, largely surrounded by designated wildlife sites including RSPB Minsmere and will be partially built on Sizewell Marshes SSSI.

In 2021, Prof Paul Dorfman’s report stated “…any adaptation efforts to mitigate annual flooding (projected to almost entirely surround the proposed EDF Sizewell C EPR nuclear island by 2050) will inevitably entail significantly increased expense for construction, operation, spent nuclear fuel management, rad-waste storage and eventual decommissioning”.

In line with the ONR’s preference, Hinkley Point C is a ‘dry site’ i.e. its platform height at 14 metres AOD is of sufficient height to prevent it from flooding. However, Sizewell C with a platform height of 7.3m AOD, is a ‘protected site’ which means that Sizewell C must at all times demonstrate that the site can be protected against flooding for its full lifetime by use of ‘permanent external barriers such as levees, sea walls and bulkheads’. Once Sizewell C is constructed with a 7.3m AOD platform height, the platform cannot be raised at a later date. The overland flood barriers need to be assessed now so alternatives can be considered e.g. raising the platform height.

Sizewell C was given DCO approval in July 2022 against the recommendation of the five professional planning inspectors. In TASC’s view, the impacts from the overland flood barriers, if they had been assessed during the DCO examination, may well have resulted in planning permission being refused. In any event, our case argues that the Secretary of State’s ‘Habitats Regulation Assessment’ has not considered the environmental impacts of the full project or alternatives, something that is a lawful requirement.

Documentation published by the ONR supporting their grant of Sizewell C’s nuclear site licence in May 2024, has revealed that, in TASC’s opinion, there are now two materially different projects, the one in the DCO approved by Kwasi Kwarteng, and the one still being considered by the ONR as part of the ‘site safety case’. It was an FOI request to the ONR in late 2024 that provided the documentation from 2017 that shows the project requires the adaptive flood protection in the form of the overland flood barriers in a credible maximum climate change scenario.

In an attempt to resolve our concerns, on 6^th March 2025 TASC wrote to Secretary of State, Ed Miliband calling on him to make a decision on whether the material change to the Sizewell C project highlighted by TASC, namely the commitment to install ‘overland flood barriers’, ‘amounts to exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate for him to exercise his power to change or revoke the DCO’.

The Energy Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, replied on 28^th March 2025, refusing TASC’s request to vary or revoke the DCO. As TASC consider this matter to be of great importance, we have been left with no alternative but to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision through the courts.

December 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »