Arroyo was president of the Philippines from 2001-2010. She left after the Philippine Department of Justice (PDOJ) [official website] allegations and has denied any wrongdoing. Arroyo was elected to the House of Representatives [official website] last year after the Philippine Supreme Court ruled her eligible to run [JURIST report], despite protests that she had an unfair advantage. In July 2010, current President Benigno Aquino [BBC profile] signed an executive order [JURIST report] to set up a "truth commission" to investigate allegations that the outgoing administration engaged in corruption and rights violations. She was accused in 2007 of tampering with the congressional election results and illegally using governmental money in 2004 for her presidential campaign.

International maritime piracy [JURIST news archive] reached an all-time high [JURIST report] early in the first quarter of 2011, according to a report [press release] released in April by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) [official website]. Last month, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Taye-Brook Zerihoun [official profile] urged the international community to increase efforts to combat Somali piracy [JURIST report]. Zerihoun's concerns stemmed from the Security Council's adoption [JURIST report] of a resolution [text] in October, urging member states to make piracy a crime and establish anti-piracy courts [webcast] due to the rise in maritime piracy crime off the coast of Somalia. France is the newest addition to the limited list of countries that have attempted to prosecute piracy, which includes Germany, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia, Spain and the US [JURIST reports].

Immigration has been a hot-button issue across the US recently. A controversial Arizona immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive] has spurred numerous legal challenges as well as influencing similar legislation in states such as Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia [JURIST reports]. Last year, the US Department of Justice [official website] filed suit [JURIST report] against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] seeking to permanently enjoin that state's immigration law. The complaint states that the law is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause [text] of the US Constitution. That case has been appealed [JURIST report] to the Supreme Court. In October, a federal judge dismissed a counterclaim [JURIST report] filed by Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne [official profile] against the US government in the lawsuit challenging the Arizona immigration law. While the court ruled that Arizona had standing to bring the counterclaim, the court barred several counts in the claim because they had already been litigated before the court in a 1995 case.

The Commission, having received complaints from war victims in Iraq in 2009, proceeded to conduct a painstaking and an in-depth investigation for close to two years and in 2011, constituted formal charges on war crimes against Bush, Blair and their associates.The Iraq invasion in 2003 and its occupation had resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. Countless others had endured torture and untold hardship. The cries of these victims have thus far gone unheeded by the international community.

Various human rights groups have filed charges against US and UK officials alleging war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. In October, the attorney general for British Columbia blocked a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by the Canadian Centre for International Justice [advocacy website] against Bush on torture allegations. Earlier in October, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy websites] urged the Canadian government to investigate and arrest [JURIST report] Bush for his role in torture. In February, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the European Center for Human Rights [advocacy websites] urged the signatory states of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) [text] to pursue criminal charges [JURIST report] against Bush. Other calls to investigate the criminal culpability of Bush and officials in his administration have been rejected consistently by US officials [JURIST report]. In 2010, a former UN official strongly suggested [JURIST report] a war crimes investigation of actions by both sides in the Afghanistan war. In 2009, the UK High Court criticized [JURIST report] its own Ministry of Defense for failure to investigate or release documents regarding a claim of war crimes against UK soldiers in Iraq.

Many will ask, what is my personal opinion and where do I stand in the debate? As I have said many times, I support maintaining the Marriage Act in its current form, and the government will not move legislation to change it. My position flows from my strong conviction that the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and that should continue unchanged. The Labor Party platform currently reflects this view.

Australia historically has had a tumultuous past protecting the rights of same-sex couples but nevertheless denying the right to same-sex marriage. In May 2008, the Australian government abandoned a proposal [JURIST report] to legally recognize same-sex civil union ceremonies after the Australian federal government threatened to veto Civil Partnerships Bill 2006 [legislative materials] if it passed the Legislative Assembly [official websites]. Australian Capital Territory Attorney General Simon Corbell said that the self-governing territory will now move to legalize civil partnerships without ceremony so that same-sex couples can have access to Commonwealth pensions, tax and social security benefits. The Civil Partnerships Bill was introduced after an earlier civil unions law [legislative materials] was actually overturned by the federal government [JURIST report] because that law's attempt to equate civil unions with marriage was determined to be unacceptable. In April of 2008, the Australian government introduced legislation to amend over 100 federal laws [press release] to remove discrimination against same-sex couples but continued to bar same-sex marriage.

Foreign and domestic courts and legislatures are increasingly addressing the issue of same-sex civil unions and marriages. In August, Chilean President Sebastian Pinera [official profile, in Spanish] proposed legislation [JURIST report] that would legalize same-sex civil unions. The bill would extend inheritance and social welfare rights to same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples. Pinera insisted that marriage is between a man and a women but acknowledged that other forms of relationships are effective and that the state is obligated to recognize, protect and respect those partnerships. In April, Hungary added a prohibition against gay marriage [JURIST report] to its constitution. France upheld a same-sex marriage ban [JURIST report] in January.

The status quo is not acceptable either. SHRC's recommendation is that all of the UK's international human rights obligations are incorporated into domestic law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is overdue. These protections for the public are all the more necessary in the present times of austerity when budgetary decisions need to be made in ways which do not disproportionately impact upon the most vulnerable in our community.

In February, former UK Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf warned that a British Bill of Rights, as proposed by various members of the British government, would conflict [JURIST report] with the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF], which the UK has incorporated into its law. While the government has not stated an intention to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, Woolf has warned that continued adherence to the convention combined with the creation of a British Bill of Rights will create complications for judges in determining which to follow and further the existing conflict between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights [official website].