A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons.

The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee.

On June 4, Judge Roger T. Benitez of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California said in a decision that the state law defining assault weapons and restricting their use was unconstitutional.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez wrote in the first line of a 94-page decision.

The AR-15 is “good for both home and battle,” he wrote, adding: “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

But the judge granted a 30-day stay of the ruling at the request of California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, a move that allowed Bonta to appeal it.

In a decision on Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further extended Benitez’s stay, pending resolution of another case challenging the ban. “The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court,” the judges wrote.

The three judges were Senior Circuit Court Judge Barry G. Silverman, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton; Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, nominated by President Barack Obama; and Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, nominated by President Donald Trump.

Bonta welcomed the ruling Monday. “This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said on Twitter. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday night.

John Dillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

In the earlier ruling, Benitez wrote that the case was about “what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment.” He added, “Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned.”

The firearms banned under the state’s law, he wrote, were not “bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” but rather “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.”

Benitez was nominated as a district court judge in 2003 by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate the next year. In 2017, he blocked a new California law that would have banned magazines of more than 10 rounds. A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in a split decision last year, but the appeals court said in February that an 11-judge panel would rehear the case.

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons. The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee.

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that overturned California’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons. The state law, which dates to 1989, was challenged in a 2019 lawsuit filed against the state’s attorney general by plaintiffs including James Miller, a California resident, and the San Diego County Gun Owners, a political action committee. On June 4, Judge Roger T. Benitez of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California said in a decision that the state law defining assault weapons and restricting their use was unconstitutional. “Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez wrote in the first line of a 94-page decision. The AR-15 is “good for both home and battle,” he wrote, adding: “One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.” But the judge granted a 30-day stay of the ruling at the request of California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, a move that allowed Bonta to appeal it. In a decision on Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further extended Benitez’s stay, pending resolution of another case challenging the ban. “The stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court,” the judges wrote. The three judges were Senior Circuit Court Judge Barry G. Silverman, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton; Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, nominated by President Barack Obama; and Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson, nominated by President Donald Trump. Bonta welcomed the ruling Monday. “This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said on Twitter. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.” Gov. Gavin Newsom did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday night. John Dillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. In the earlier ruling, Benitez wrote that the case was about “what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment.” He added, “Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned.” The firearms banned under the state’s law, he wrote, were not “bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” but rather “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles.” Benitez was nominated as a district court judge in 2003 by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate the next year. In 2017, he blocked a new California law that would have banned magazines of more than 10 rounds. A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in a split decision last year, but the appeals court said in February that an 11-judge panel would rehear the case.

Appeals court blocks ruling that overturned California’s assault weapons ban

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims. &nbsp;

Remnants of Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula remain contentious for both sides, with many surviving 'comfort women', a Japanese euphemism for the sex abuse victims, demanding Tokyo's formal apology and compensation.&nbsp;

Diplomatic tension flared in January when another judge at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favour of other women in a separate case, ordering Japan to pay compensation for the first time. That verdict had drawn a rebuke from Tokyo, which says the issue was settled under a 1965 treaty and a 2015 deal.&nbsp;

But on Wednesday, a judge at the same court recognised Japan's right to state immunity from overseas lawsuits, contradicting the January ruling that Japan could not assert immunity for 'a crime against humanity’. &nbsp;

"If an exception on state immunity is acknowledged, a diplomatic clash would be inevitable during the process of forcing the ruling’s implementation," judge Min Seong-cheol said, dismissing the latest case brought by the 20 ‘comfort women’ victims and their relatives. &nbsp;

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said after Wednesday's ruling that the Japanese government cannot be subject to South Korean jurisdiction and the entire lawsuit should be dropped. &nbsp;

"As the Japanese government, we will continue to strongly ask the South Korean side for an appropriate action," Kato said, during a regular briefing.&nbsp;

Lee Yong-soo, a 'comfort women' victim and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling 'absurd, nonsense’, saying she would seek international litigation over the case. &nbsp;

Justice Min also said the issue should be resolved via diplomatic consultations, and the 2015 agreement could provide the groundwork for a solution despite some flaws in negotiations. &nbsp;

Under that deal, Tokyo issued an official apology and provided 1 billion yen ($9.3 million) to a fund to help comfort women victims, with both sides promising to 'irreversibly' end the dispute.&nbsp;

But some victims, including Lee, had rejected the settlement saying the government did not sufficiently consult them during the negotiations.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims.

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld Japan's state immunity to dismiss a lawsuit raised by a group of women, who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, contradicting a ruling in a separate earlier case that ordered Tokyo to compensate victims. Remnants of Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula remain contentious for both sides, with many surviving 'comfort women', a Japanese euphemism for the sex abuse victims, demanding Tokyo's formal apology and compensation. Diplomatic tension flared in January when another judge at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favour of other women in a separate case, ordering Japan to pay compensation for the first time. That verdict had drawn a rebuke from Tokyo, which says the issue was settled under a 1965 treaty and a 2015 deal. But on Wednesday, a judge at the same court recognised Japan's right to state immunity from overseas lawsuits, contradicting the January ruling that Japan could not assert immunity for 'a crime against humanity’. "If an exception on state immunity is acknowledged, a diplomatic clash would be inevitable during the process of forcing the ruling’s implementation," judge Min Seong-cheol said, dismissing the latest case brought by the 20 ‘comfort women’ victims and their relatives. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said after Wednesday's ruling that the Japanese government cannot be subject to South Korean jurisdiction and the entire lawsuit should be dropped. "As the Japanese government, we will continue to strongly ask the South Korean side for an appropriate action," Kato said, during a regular briefing. Lee Yong-soo, a 'comfort women' victim and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling 'absurd, nonsense’, saying she would seek international litigation over the case. Justice Min also said the issue should be resolved via diplomatic consultations, and the 2015 agreement could provide the groundwork for a solution despite some flaws in negotiations. Under that deal, Tokyo issued an official apology and provided 1 billion yen ($9.3 million) to a fund to help comfort women victims, with both sides promising to 'irreversibly' end the dispute. But some victims, including Lee, had rejected the settlement saying the government did not sufficiently consult them during the negotiations. (With inputs from agencies)

South Korean court dismisses lawsuit by 'comfort women', contradicts earlier ruling 

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after&nbsp;Cristiano&nbsp;Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/Football-news-cristiano-ronaldo-breaks-another-mile-stone-scores-50-goals-of-juventus-278271">Cristiano Ronaldo achieves another milestone, scores 50 goals for Juventus</a>

A district court in Incheon, west of Seoul, ordered the local agency that organised the match, The Fasta Inc, to pay 371,000 won ($312) to both fans listed in the lawsuit.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cristiano-ronaldo-first-to-get-200-million-followers-on-instagram-277492">Cristiano Ronaldo first to get 200 million followers on Instagram</a>

The lawsuit complained that The Fasta Inc had publicised Ronaldo would play for at least 45 minutes, but the Portugal star ultimately sat out the entire game in July 2019.

The court ordered The Fasta Inc to pay 70,000 won ($58.95) per ticket, 1,000 won ($0.8421) for the ticket commission fee, and 300,000 won ($252.63) each for "mental anguish" for the two plaintiffs, lawyer Kim Min-ki who filed the lawsuit, told Reuters.

Kim said he was also representing 87 other plaintiffs in several other cases that were filed in connection with the match.

The Fasta Inc's website was not online as of Tuesday, and phone calls to the company's president were not answered.

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after Cristiano Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday.

Two South Korean soccer fans who sued the match organiser after Cristiano Ronaldo failed to play in a friendly during Juventus's pre-season tour in Seoul last year are entitled to compensation, a court ruled on Tuesday. Also read: Cristiano Ronaldo achieves another milestone, scores 50 goals for Juventus A district court in Incheon, west of Seoul, ordered the local agency that organised the match, The Fasta Inc, to pay 371,000 won ($312) to both fans listed in the lawsuit. Also read: Cristiano Ronaldo first to get 200 million followers on Instagram The lawsuit complained that The Fasta Inc had publicised Ronaldo would play for at least 45 minutes, but the Portugal star ultimately sat out the entire game in July 2019. The court ordered The Fasta Inc to pay 70,000 won ($58.95) per ticket, 1,000 won ($0.8421) for the ticket commission fee, and 300,000 won ($252.63) each for "mental anguish" for the two plaintiffs, lawyer Kim Min-ki who filed the lawsuit, told Reuters. Kim said he was also representing 87 other plaintiffs in several other cases that were filed in connection with the match. The Fasta Inc's website was not online as of Tuesday, and phone calls to the company's president were not answered.

Ronaldo fans entitled to compensation after star's no-show, S.Korean court rules

Former Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharraf owned more properties under defence housing schemes than previously thought, a media report said on Tuesday, days after a top court ordered authorities to confiscate his bank accounts and property. 
 
The Defence Housing Authority (DHA) confirmed three bungalows were named after the 72-year-old former president, who is currently said to be in Dubai for purported medical treatment. 
 
The DHA wrote a letter to the district and session court confirming their presence, Geo News reported. 
 
According to details in the letter, Musharraf has a 2000-yard bungalow in Phase 8, Defence. He also owns two plots in DHA phase 8, DHA stated.&nbsp;However DHA has remained silent over a bungalow in Army Housing Scheme which is considered one of the main properties of the former military dictator. 
 
Quoting sources in DHA, the report said that Musharraf in fact has two properties in Army Housing Scheme, something that even the court was unaware of. 
 
District Judge South (Karachi) Nazir Amin Memon had initiated action based on the Special Court judge&#39;s ruling on July 19, in which the court had ordered freezing of Musharraf&#39;s assets and properties. 
 
The district judge had ordered seizing of four bungalows belonging to the former president for not appearing before it during proceedings of a high treason case despite repeated notices. 
 
The district judge in a letter had asked the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to take action and submit a response in three days over the matter. 
 
Musharraf flew to Dubai in March for purported medical treatment after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on his foreign trips and it is believed that he may never return to face a slew of several high-profile cases against him. 
 
The Special Court in one of its previous rulings had declared ex-president Musharraf a &#39;proclaimed offender&#39;. 
 
In March 2014, Musharraf was formally indicted over treason charges for imposing emergency and the Provisional Constitutional Order on November 3, 2007. 
 
Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, deposing then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Facing impeachment following elections in 2008, he resigned as president and went into self-imposed exile in Dubai. 
 
He returned in 2013 to contest elections but was implicated in several high-profile cases. He is facing trial in illegal detention of judges in 2007. Musharraf has also been charged in connection with the 2007 assassination of prime minister Benazir Bhutto.&nbsp; 
 
(PTI)

A Special Court's ruling on July 19 had ordered freezing of Musharraf's properties for failing to appear in a high treason case

Former Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharraf owned more properties under defence housing schemes than previously thought, a media report said on Tuesday, days after a top court ordered authorities to confiscate his bank accounts and property. The Defence Housing Authority (DHA) confirmed three bungalows were named after the 72-year-old former president, who is currently said to be in Dubai for purported medical treatment. The DHA wrote a letter to the district and session court confirming their presence, Geo News reported. According to details in the letter, Musharraf has a 2000-yard bungalow in Phase 8, Defence. He also owns two plots in DHA phase 8, DHA stated. However DHA has remained silent over a bungalow in Army Housing Scheme which is considered one of the main properties of the former military dictator. Quoting sources in DHA, the report said that Musharraf in fact has two properties in Army Housing Scheme, something that even the court was unaware of. District Judge South (Karachi) Nazir Amin Memon had initiated action based on the Special Court judge's ruling on July 19, in which the court had ordered freezing of Musharraf's assets and properties. The district judge had ordered seizing of four bungalows belonging to the former president for not appearing before it during proceedings of a high treason case despite repeated notices. The district judge in a letter had asked the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to take action and submit a response in three days over the matter. Musharraf flew to Dubai in March for purported medical treatment after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on his foreign trips and it is believed that he may never return to face a slew of several high-profile cases against him. The Special Court in one of its previous rulings had declared ex-president Musharraf a 'proclaimed offender'. In March 2014, Musharraf was formally indicted over treason charges for imposing emergency and the Provisional Constitutional Order on November 3, 2007. Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, deposing then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Facing impeachment following elections in 2008, he resigned as president and went into self-imposed exile in Dubai. He returned in 2013 to contest elections but was implicated in several high-profile cases. He is facing trial in illegal detention of judges in 2007. Musharraf has also been charged in connection with the 2007 assassination of prime minister Benazir Bhutto. (PTI)

Musharraf owns more properties than known: Report

An international tribunal on Tuesday ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea that is likely to ratchet up regional tensions. 
 
&quot;The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the &#39;nine-dash line,&#39;&quot; the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said in a statement. 
 
All eyes were watching for reaction from the Asian political and military powerhouse, which had fired off a barrage of criticism even before the decision by the PCA in The Hague was announced. 
 
China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea -- about 90 per cent of the strategically vital waters -- in the face of rival claims from its South East Asian neighbours. 
 
Manila had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013, saying that after 17 years of negotiations it had exhausted all political and diplomatic avenues.&nbsp;Beijing waged a months-long campaign to discredit the panel, which it says has no jurisdiction in the multinational dispute, and it refused to take part in the case. 
 
The state-run China Daily topped its front page with a picture of Woody Island in the Paracels, emblazoned: &quot;Arbitration invalid&quot;. 
 
English-language headlines on the official Xinhua news agency included: &quot;South China Sea arbitration abuses international law: Chinese scholar&quot;, &quot;Permanent Court of Arbitration must avoid being used for political purposes&quot; and &quot;The sea where Chinese fishermen live and die&quot;. 
 
Ahead of the decision, new Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte had signalled he did not want to antagonise China, saying he would not &quot;taunt or flaunt&quot; a favourable ruling and would seek a &quot;soft landing&quot; with China. 
 
Nine-dash line&nbsp; 
 
China&#39;s claims were first enshrined in a map drawn in the 1940s with a nine-dash line stretching south from China and encircling almost all of the sea, although it says Chinese fishermen have been using it for centuries. 
 
To bolster its position it has rapidly turned reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military planes. 
 
It has held naval drills between the Paracels and the southern Chinese island of Hainan in recent days. 
 
US naval destroyers have been patrolling near the Chinese-claimed Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands, supported by aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, the US-based Navy Times reported. 
 
Chinese state media have said Beijing will not take a &quot;single step back&quot; after the ruling, and President Xi Jinping said earlier this month that China would never compromise on sovereignty, adding: &quot;We are not afraid of trouble&quot;. 
 
China had sought diplomatic support around the world, and foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said its latest backers included Angola, Madagascar and Papua New Guinea, showing that &quot;justice and righteousness always have popular support&quot;. 
 
&quot;Who is upholding the sanctity of international law and who is breaking international law, I think people are all clear about that,&quot; Lu said. 
 
Likely to &#39;escalate the war of words&#39;&nbsp; 
 
Manila lodged its suit against Beijing in 2013, saying China was in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both countries are signatories. 
 
One of the key issues was whether the land features in the area are islands capable of supporting human habitation - which under UNCLOS are entitled to territorial waters and an exclusive economic zone - or rocks, which only have territorial waters, or low-tide elevations, which get neither. 
 
If none of the outcrops are islands, then none of the claimants to them would gain sole rights to major expanses of the waters around them. 
 
&quot;The ruling can reduce the scope of the South China Sea disputes, but will not solve them,&quot; said analysts Yanmei Xie and Tim Johnston of the International Crisis Group in a report. 
 
The ruling was likely to &quot;escalate the war of words&quot;, they said, but added: &quot;Escalation to military standoffs is not inevitable&quot;. 
 
China could choose to withdraw from UNCLOS, or begin building on Scarborough Shoal, which Washington would view as a provocation. 
 
Beijing could also declare an air defence identification zone over the South China Sea, claiming the right to interrogate aircraft passing through the airspace, or try to remove a ship grounded by the Philippines on Second Thomas Shoal for use as a base. 
 
Alternatively, it could move to reduce tensions. 
 
Philippine foreign minister Perfecto Yasay had said on Friday that Manila hoped to open direct talks with Beijing on the dispute, and presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Tuesday: &quot;The top priority will be national interest.&quot; 
 
The Philippine embassy in China has warned its citizens to beware of personal &quot;threats&quot; and avoid political debates. 
 
Nationalist demonstrations are not rare in China, sometimes apparently with the tacit backing of authorities. 
 
More than 20 Chinese police were positioned outside the Philippine embassy on Tuesday, with more in vans nearby - a significantly larger presence than usual - along with two lorries loaded with crowd control barriers, a possible indication that authorities expected protests at the building. 
 
Official response from China 
 
China rejected an international ruling on the South China Sea on Tuesday, saying its islands had exclusive economic zones and the Chinese people have more than 2,000 years of history of activities there. 
 
China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels, and China&#39;s position is consistent with international law and practice, China&#39;s Foreign Ministry added. 
 
(AFP and Reuters)

China claims 90% of the sea. The Philippines took it to court in 2013, saying that after 17 years it had exhausted all other options

An international tribunal on Tuesday ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea that is likely to ratchet up regional tensions. "The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line,'" the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said in a statement. All eyes were watching for reaction from the Asian political and military powerhouse, which had fired off a barrage of criticism even before the decision by the PCA in The Hague was announced. China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea -- about 90 per cent of the strategically vital waters -- in the face of rival claims from its South East Asian neighbours. Manila had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013, saying that after 17 years of negotiations it had exhausted all political and diplomatic avenues. Beijing waged a months-long campaign to discredit the panel, which it says has no jurisdiction in the multinational dispute, and it refused to take part in the case. The state-run China Daily topped its front page with a picture of Woody Island in the Paracels, emblazoned: "Arbitration invalid". English-language headlines on the official Xinhua news agency included: "South China Sea arbitration abuses international law: Chinese scholar", "Permanent Court of Arbitration must avoid being used for political purposes" and "The sea where Chinese fishermen live and die". Ahead of the decision, new Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte had signalled he did not want to antagonise China, saying he would not "taunt or flaunt" a favourable ruling and would seek a "soft landing" with China. Nine-dash line China's claims were first enshrined in a map drawn in the 1940s with a nine-dash line stretching south from China and encircling almost all of the sea, although it says Chinese fishermen have been using it for centuries. To bolster its position it has rapidly turned reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military planes. It has held naval drills between the Paracels and the southern Chinese island of Hainan in recent days. US naval destroyers have been patrolling near the Chinese-claimed Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands, supported by aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, the US-based Navy Times reported. Chinese state media have said Beijing will not take a "single step back" after the ruling, and President Xi Jinping said earlier this month that China would never compromise on sovereignty, adding: "We are not afraid of trouble". China had sought diplomatic support around the world, and foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said its latest backers included Angola, Madagascar and Papua New Guinea, showing that "justice and righteousness always have popular support". "Who is upholding the sanctity of international law and who is breaking international law, I think people are all clear about that," Lu said. Likely to 'escalate the war of words' Manila lodged its suit against Beijing in 2013, saying China was in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both countries are signatories. One of the key issues was whether the land features in the area are islands capable of supporting human habitation - which under UNCLOS are entitled to territorial waters and an exclusive economic zone - or rocks, which only have territorial waters, or low-tide elevations, which get neither. If none of the outcrops are islands, then none of the claimants to them would gain sole rights to major expanses of the waters around them. "The ruling can reduce the scope of the South China Sea disputes, but will not solve them," said analysts Yanmei Xie and Tim Johnston of the International Crisis Group in a report. The ruling was likely to "escalate the war of words", they said, but added: "Escalation to military standoffs is not inevitable". China could choose to withdraw from UNCLOS, or begin building on Scarborough Shoal, which Washington would view as a provocation. Beijing could also declare an air defence identification zone over the South China Sea, claiming the right to interrogate aircraft passing through the airspace, or try to remove a ship grounded by the Philippines on Second Thomas Shoal for use as a base. Alternatively, it could move to reduce tensions. Philippine foreign minister Perfecto Yasay had said on Friday that Manila hoped to open direct talks with Beijing on the dispute, and presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Tuesday: "The top priority will be national interest." The Philippine embassy in China has warned its citizens to beware of personal "threats" and avoid political debates. Nationalist demonstrations are not rare in China, sometimes apparently with the tacit backing of authorities. More than 20 Chinese police were positioned outside the Philippine embassy on Tuesday, with more in vans nearby - a significantly larger presence than usual - along with two lorries loaded with crowd control barriers, a possible indication that authorities expected protests at the building. Official response from China China rejected an international ruling on the South China Sea on Tuesday, saying its islands had exclusive economic zones and the Chinese people have more than 2,000 years of history of activities there. China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels, and China's position is consistent with international law and practice, China's Foreign Ministry added. (AFP and Reuters)

South China Sea dispute: Hague rules against China

Protesters burnt vehicles and set tires on fire to barricade roads in South Africa&#39;s capital on Tuesday, June 21, after the ANC named a mayoral candidate not nominated by the ruling party&#39;s regional branches. 
 
The violence spread overnight from the townships and started after a member of the African National Congress (ANC) was shot dead on Sunday, June 19, as factions clashed at a meeting in Pretoria to decide on the candidates for mayor of Tshwane municipality, where Pretoria is located. 
 
The ANC then named senior party member and former cabinet minister, Thoko Didiza, as its candidate for Tshwane, saying that it made the decision after wrangling between members at the party&#39;s headquarters over who should lead the municipality. 
 
According to local media, residents want the incumbent mayor Kgosientso Ramokgopa to be allowed to run on the ANC ticket but Ramokgopa has publicly backed Didiza&#39;s selection and called for calm. 
 
The ANC said its members were not to blame for the violence. 
 
Local elections in August pose a major test for the ANC as it gears up for a 2019 presidential vote in the face of a slowing economy and a strong challenge from the opposition 
 
(Reuters)

The violence spread overnight, starting after a member of the African National Congress was shot dead on Sunday

Protesters burnt vehicles and set tires on fire to barricade roads in South Africa's capital on Tuesday, June 21, after the ANC named a mayoral candidate not nominated by the ruling party's regional branches. The violence spread overnight from the townships and started after a member of the African National Congress (ANC) was shot dead on Sunday, June 19, as factions clashed at a meeting in Pretoria to decide on the candidates for mayor of Tshwane municipality, where Pretoria is located. The ANC then named senior party member and former cabinet minister, Thoko Didiza, as its candidate for Tshwane, saying that it made the decision after wrangling between members at the party's headquarters over who should lead the municipality. According to local media, residents want the incumbent mayor Kgosientso Ramokgopa to be allowed to run on the ANC ticket but Ramokgopa has publicly backed Didiza's selection and called for calm. The ANC said its members were not to blame for the violence. Local elections in August pose a major test for the ANC as it gears up for a 2019 presidential vote in the face of a slowing economy and a strong challenge from the opposition (Reuters)

Protesters in Pretoria burn cars, tires after unnominated man becomes mayoral candidate

ruling

Ruling, News on Ruling, stories on Ruling, articles on Ruling, Ruling stories at Wion, Ruling news, Ruling latest news