JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, September 23, 2012

[JURIST] Belarus held elections for members of parliament Sunday, despite a boycott by opposition parties. Many of the largest opposition parties agreed to not vote in the elections and pull their candidates, believing the results are predetermined. Despite the boycott, voter turnout was reported as at least over 50 percent [RFE report], which will allow the election results to stand. The Central Election Commission (CEC) [official website, in Russian] reported 66 percent voter turnout at one point, but international poll observers contend the number was inflated [WP report]. Parties involved in the boycott include the United Civil Part of Belarus [official website, in Russian], Zmena [official profile], and the Belarusian Popular Front (BPF) [official website, in Belarusian]. Five opposition group leaders issued an interview [Belarus Partisan report, in Russian] stating they do not recognize the election results as legitimate. Opposition reports have indicated that polling station observers have gone missing and the government has preemptively shut down planned post-election protests [Charter 97 reports, in Russian]. State run media in Belarus reported above expectation voter turnout and some complaints and minor errors [Belarusian Telegraph Agency reports] but no significant problems. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] warned [press release] Thursday that opposition protesters could be under attack by the government, noting that at least five had already been arrested and detained. Election results are due to be announced Monday.

Belarus has been under increasing criticism for what many see as a rapid decline of human rights in the Eastern European nation. In January, internet restrictions were put in place [JURIST report], creating several limitations on Internet access. JURIST Guest Columnist Johann Bihr, Director of the Press Desk for Europe and Central Asia at Reporters Without Borders [advocacy website] argued [JURIST comment] that the law not only limits the online freedoms of individuals, but also creates harsh penalties for Internet providers, all in a government effort to exert more control over citizens. Days before, US President Barack Obama signed the Belarus Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2011 [JURIST report], which imposed new sanctions on Belarus. The new sanctions required the US to investigate Belarus' arms deals and its possible censorship of the Internet, as well as denying visas to a list of Belarusian officials. In November a Belarus court convicted [JURIST report] human rights activist Ales Bialiatski, the president of Viasana and vice-president of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy websites], of tax evasion, sentencing him to a four-and-a-half-year prison term amid international criticism.

[JURIST] The Afghan Interior Ministry [official website, in Persian] on Saturday ordered a ban on all Pakistani newspapers from entering Afghanistan because, they claim, the papers are a source of propaganda on the part of the Taliban. The papers are to be barred from entry [Reuters report] at the popular border crossings of Nangarhar, Kunar and Nuristan. The new order gives police the power to confiscate all Pakistani newspapers. Afghan officials claim that newspapers are not based on facts and only put forth Taliban propaganda. Pakistan denies these claims and officials point out the widespread readership some Pakistani newspapers have in Afghanistan.

In July, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] expressed concern about a proposed media law in Afghanistan that would increase government authority to regulate the press. According to HRW, the new law would place greater oversight authority in the director of the High Media Council, which would also be able to influence the budgets and composition of other media-related bodies. The new law would also regulate things such as word choice in news reporting and broadcasting of foreign programs. The press has come under attack in other places around the world recently. A media rights group called attention [JURIST report] to a new Ukrainian libel law last week.

[JURIST] The Libyan army ordered all militias to either come under the control of the national government or disband within 48 hours on Saturday. The announcement comes after intense anti-militia protests that included between 30,000 and 40,000 demonstrators [Libya Herald report] in Benghazi killed at least eleven people over the weekend. All militias have been ordered to leave all military bases and compounds [Guardian report] which are then to be secured by the Libyan army. Agreements have been reached with two powerful groups in Derna, which is about 180 miles east of Benghazi, who agreed to disband. Some military bases have already been secured by the army. While the government plans on disbanding all groups that do not fall under government control [Libya Herald report], it is unclear to some how effective it can be in disbanding militias in areas that have historically been under weak government control.

The protests were reportedly sparked by unrest of the Libyan people following the September 11 raid of the US embassy [Libya Herald report] and the death of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The militia group, Ansar Al-Sharia, which has been linked to the raid, has agreed to disband [Libya Herald report] and four of its members were arrested under suspicion of being involved in the raid. There has been significant controversy surrounding the raid which was originally reported as a response to an offensive video and has now been deemed a coordinated attack [CNN report] by some analysts.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] affirmed [opinion, PDF] on Friday the dismissal of the Alaskan village of Kivalina's nuisance claims against energy companies for greenhouse emissions it claimed contributed to global warming and threatened its existence. Kivalina brought suit against 22 energy corporations, attributing the destruction of its land to the effects of global warming, which it alleged partially results from emissions of greenhouse gases by the defendants. The US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] had dismissed [opinion text] the claim on standing in 2009, stating that because it was a political question the courts could not intervene. Citing to the Supreme Court's ruling in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut [JURIST report], the Ninth Circuit ruled that:

[T]he Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action. That determination displaces federal common law public nuisance actions seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief. The civil conspiracy claim falls with the substantive claim. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ... [T]he solution to Kivalina's dire circumstance must rest in the hands of the legislative and executive branches of our government, not the federal common law.

As one of the 22 defendants, AES Corporation [official website] had expected its insurance company, Steadfast, to defend the suit under their liability coverage [JURIST report]. However, the Virginia Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in September 2011 that the effects of global warming [JURIST news archive] were not covered by a standard liability insurance policy because no single "accident" or "occurrence" had forced the suit, but rather intentional actions.

In Massachusetts v. EPA [Duke Law case backgrounder] the court found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and its failure to set applicable standards without reason was no in accordance with law. Yet the EPA has experienced few victories recently. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) [text, PDF] when it issued a regulation limiting power plants' emissions that cross state lines. A DC Circuit decision upholding the EPA's plan to add more ethanol to gasoline [JURIST report] marked a rare victory for the EPA. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the EPA also overstepped its bounds when it rejected a Texas plan to issue air permits. In early August, the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the EPA violated several environmental statutes when it issued regulations on coal mining in the Appalachia region.