The COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with a landmark agreement to raise $300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer nations tackle climate change. However, the deal, reached after 33 hours of extended negotiations, has faced sharp criticism from developing countries, which argue that the funding falls drastically short of their demands.

Developing nations had sought $1.3 trillion per year to address the climate crisis, a figure they argue reflects the scale of the challenge they face. While the agreement includes a commitment to mobilize $1.3 trillion from public and private sources by 2035, the immediate pledge of $300 billion annually was dismissed by many as insufficient.

India’s representative, Leela Nandan, called the amount “abysmally poor,” while Cedric Schuster, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, highlighted the existential threat faced by low-lying nations. “Our islands are sinking. How can you expect us to go back to the women, men, and children of our countries with a poor deal?” Schuster asked.

The agreement acknowledged the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing nations, which have contributed the least to global emissions. Simon Stiell, head of the UN climate body, admitted the deal was imperfect but emphasized the need to press forward. “No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work still to do,” he stated.

The summit nearly collapsed as talks dragged on past the deadline, but the final deal was met with applause in the early hours of Sunday morning. While some celebrated the funding increase, others voiced their frustration at the slow pace of global action.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could face arrest if he enters the United Kingdom, following an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), according to indications from No 10.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declined to comment on the specifics of Netanyahu’s case but affirmed that the government is committed to fulfilling its “legal obligations.”

The ICC issued arrest warrants on Thursday for Netanyahu, alongside former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes in Gaza. As a signatory to the ICC treaty, the UK is obligated to enforce such warrants.

Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK government must transmit ICC arrest requests to a judicial officer, who then determines whether to endorse the warrant for execution within the country.

“The government would fulfil its obligations under the act and its legal obligations under both domestic and international law,” the spokesperson said, emphasizing the UK’s commitment to its treaty obligations.

When asked if Netanyahu would be detained upon arrival in the UK, the spokesperson refrained from commenting on “hypotheticals.” However, the legal framework leaves little room for discretion if a visit occurs, given the binding nature of the treaty.

A New York judge has delayed the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump for a third time as legal battles over his conviction remain unresolved. Trump’s attorneys continue to press for his conviction to be dismissed, citing presidential immunity and potential interference with his upcoming duties as president.

Originally scheduled for sentencing on November 26, Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony fraud charges. The Manhattan District Attorney, who led the prosecution, opposes efforts to overturn the conviction but has suggested delaying sentencing until after Trump’s second presidential term.

Justice Juan Merchan, presiding over the case, has paused all proceedings to review legal briefs from both sides. These submissions are due in December, but no new sentencing date has been set.

With Trump’s inauguration looming on January 20, the court faces increasing pressure to decide whether the conviction will stand or if sentencing will proceed.

Trump’s legal team argues that his conviction undermines the principle of presidential immunity, asserting that legal proceedings during his term would interfere with his ability to govern effectively. Critics, however, have pushed back, asserting that no one, including the president, is above the law.

This legal standoff marks another chapter in the contentious relationship between Trump and the judiciary, as the nation watches closely to see how the case unfolds in the lead-up to his second inauguration.