Angola has enjoyed large economic growth and increased stability following the end of the nation-wide civil war in 2002. However it was unsuccessful in addressing problems such as corruption. In early 2010 HRW called [JURIST report] on the government to increase its effort to fight corruption affecting the majority of its citizens who are not able to enjoy the improvements of the country. Angola entered a financial agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [official website] and HRW urged the IMF and its board members, US and China, to ensure that Angola adhere to the provisions set forth by the IMF. In January 2010, the parliament of Angola approved [JURIST report] a new constitution ending the popular election of the president and replacing the interim constitution that had been in place since 1975.

Myanmar has been unsuccessful in resolving the sectarian violence prevalent in the country despite attempts by President Thein Sein [BBC profile; official website, in Burmese] to bring peace to the communities, making the country subject to international criticism. On Wednesday Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] a 56-page document [report, PDF] accusing Myanmar security forces of human rights abuses against a minority religious community in June. In July UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed concern over the continued violence and human rights violations prevalent in Myanmar's Rakhine state since clashes began between its Buddhist and minority Rohingya [BBC backgrounder] Muslim communities in May. A week earlier Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] reported [JURIST report] that the violence between the two groups has increased since a state of emergency was declared [NYT report] in the western Myanmar State Rakhine. Earlier in July, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [official website] Melissa Fleming reported that 10 UN staff and aid workers had been arrested [JURIST report] in the northwestern Rakhine state and three of them are facing unknown criminal charges. In June, HRW had urged [JURIST report] the Chinese government to provide basic food and shelter needs to refugees from Myanmar after finding refugee abuse. Earlier in June, HRW also called on [JURIST report] Bangladesh to open its borders to Myanmar refugees a day after it demanded Myanmar ensure the safety of communities in the Arakan State subject to the violence between Arakan Buddhists and ethnic Rohingya Muslims.

The UN Security Council [official website] extended the mission in Syria following a call [JURIST report] by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] and three other rights groups earlier this month. They had alleged that human rights violations are on the rise and urged the UN to continue pressuring the Syrian government to end the violence. Also earlier this month UN Chief Military Observer in Syria Major-General Robert Mood stated that Syrian authorities were committed to implementing the six-point peace agreement [JURIST reports] that was reached a week earlier. In June a UN commission stated [JURIST report] that Syrian forces "may have been responsible" for the killing of more than 100 civilians in Al-Houla in May. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [JURIST news archive] had denied [JURIST report] the allegations stating that "not even monsters" would carry out the attacks.

Plaintiffs in this case are board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists. Enforcement of the ban will bar them from providing pre-viability pregnancy terminations for their patients at or after 20 weeks, in contravention of their patients' rights and in some cases at the expense of their patients' health. They therefore challenged the ban as applied to abortions performed prior to viability on the grounds that it violates their patients' right under the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief [in the district court].

This is the latest development in the ongoing reproductive rights controversy [JURIST backgrounder]. In July a federal judge blocked a Mississippi law [JURIST report] that would have effectively shut down the state's only abortion clinic. Two weeks ago, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt appealed a ruling [JURIST report] by a district court judge that held that an abortion ultrasound bill is unconstitutional. Earlier last month, Louisiana Governor Bob Jindal signed a bill increasing abortion restrictions in the state [JURIST report]. In May, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs [JURIST report] that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy. Earlier that month, a judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County ruled [JURIST report] that a law restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. In March, Utah passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours [JURIST report] prior to obtaining the procedure.

The problem of oil spills and contamination is not isolated to Ogoniland. In April a Brazilian federal prosecutor filed [JURIST report] a second $11 billion lawsuit against Chevron [corporate website] after the company reported a new leak [press release] in its Frade oil field in the Campos Basin. Eduardo Santos de Oliviera filed the first lawsuit after a 2,400 barrel oil spill [Global Voices backgrounder] polluted the Campos Basin last November. A month earlier the same prosecutor filed environmental criminal charges against the oil company related to the November oil spill alleging that the accused committed willful or negligent conduct causing the spill. During the same month, 35 Nigerian villages filed suit [JURIST report] against Shell [corporate website] in a London court alleging Shell's slow response in cleaning up two oil spills in a neighboring river ruined their livelihoods. A similar suit was filed in November of last year by a Nigerian village against Royal Dutch Shell PLC in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan [official website]. The suit was based on the report released by UNEP last year.

Also this week Taiwan's National Cheng Kung University [university website] filed a patent lawsuit against Apple in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas [official website], that Apple infringed upon two of the university's voice-to-text technology patents issued in 2007 and 2010 when Apple used Siri [materials] in its iPhones and future iPads. Last week the Federal Court of Australia [official website] began hearing [JURIST report] two patent infringement cases brought by Apple and Samsung Electronics. Also last week the German Oberlandesgericht Duesseldorf [official website, in German] court upheld a lower court decision that rejected a request by Apple [JURIST report] to nationally ban the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 N. Apple filed a suit [JURIST report] against Samsung in April of last year alleging that Samsung committed ten patent infringements, two trademark violations and two trade dress violations by copying iPhone and iPad technology in making its Galaxy products.

This is not the first time the Obama administration has taken measures to pressure Iran's financial means. In February the President signed [JURIST report] an executive order [text] that imposed similar sanctions as part of an effort to enforce December's National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 [text, PDF], which allows such punitive measures to be taken. Obama justified the sanctions to Congress by explaining [statement] that Iranian banks had been misleading in their dealings, including a practice of concealing prohibited transactions and intentionally implementing inadequate anti-money laundering protocols. Specifically, those sanctions block any property of Iran or its banks that fall under US jurisdiction. Though controversial, the NDAA was signed into law [JURIST report] as part of the President's pledge that "all necessary and appropriate force" may be used to detain those suspected of terrorism.

The meltdown is considered one of the biggest man-made environmental disasters of all time and the largest nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986. Japan has been criticized for its handling of the crisis, and international reception to nuclear energy has fallen sharply since the incident. Last month on Japan's national holiday tens of thousands of protestors rallied in Tokyo [JURIST report] in a peaceful antinuclear demonstration against June's unilateral decision by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda [BBC profile] to restart the country's nuclear reactors, which were shut down after the Fukushima meltdown. Also last month a Japanese expert panel issued a report claiming that the Fukushima catastrophe was preventable. The 641-page document claims that the accident was not caused solely by the earthquake [JURIST report] and subsequent tsunami, but the inability of the government, regulators and TEPCO to act quickly enough to prevent the disaster. In April 2011 Tamar Cerafici of the Cerafici Law Firm discussed how the Fukushima disaster should guide US policy [JURIST op-ed]. Last August Japanese lawmakers voted to create a fund to compensate victims [JURIST report].

Yasser Arafat's health began to fail in October 2004, at which point he was flown to a Paris hospital. Arafat died [JURIST report] at age 75 on November 11, 2004. The week leading up to Arafat's death proved to be highly tumultuous. Only a day before an Islamic judge ruled [JURIST report] that the former leader's life support system could not be switched off despite his near-death state and burial preparations. On November 4 CBC news reported [JURIST report] that Israeli television had announced Arafat's death, only to be contradicted shortly thereafter by Arafat's French hospital. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker also confirmed the head of state's death that day.

The Court is not unappreciative of the viable interests asserted by all parties to this litigation. How to best strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need to preserve the verdant landscapes and natural resources of Appalachia and, on the other hand, the economic role that coal mining plays in the region is not, however, a question for the Court to decide. In this litigation, the sole inquiry for the Court is the legality of the Final Guidance, and, for the reasons set forth above, that inquiry yields the conclusion that the EPA has overstepped its statutory authority under the CWA and the SMCRA, and infringed on the authority afforded state regulators by those statutes.

The EPA has been forced to deal with several defeats over the past year. In October a federal judge similarly ruled [JURIST report] against the agency regarding its process for granting permits used by coal companies for mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. There, in a separate victory for the NMA, the court likewise found a violation of the CWA, and ordered that the EPA's 2009 guidelines be set aside so that all pre-2009 guidelines could be restored. In an out-of-court defeat last September the US House of Representatives [official website] passed [JURIST report] the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act 2011 [text, PDF], a bill that essentially blocks a number of proposed EPA regulations aimed at reducing emissions.