Swiss voters today rejected a referendum proposal that would have asserted precedence for Swiss rules over international law, the national broadcaster SRF reported.

Two-thirds of voters said no to the so-called “Swiss-law first” initiative in a referendum that the country’s right-wing People’s Party (SVP) backed.

Had the initiative been successful, it would have put Switzerland at odds with the EU and the United Nations. Six U.N. agencies are based in Geneva, making the city the U.N.’s second-largest base.

The SVP had argued that the proposal would have strengthened the country’s national identity and Swiss autonomy.

“The result [today] proves once again that while the SVP can score points with initiatives related to foreigners, it is less successful when it comes to questions of national politics,” Martina Mousson of pollsters gfs Bern told The Local.

In a separate referendum vote, Switzerland also rejected a bid to give farmers subsidies if they refuse to remove their cows’ horns.

Swiss voters defeated the cow horns’ vote with a majority of 54.7 percent, SRF reported, while 45.3 percent voted in favor of the subsidies initiative. </s> The initiative, entitled "Swiss Law, Not Foreign Judges" was launched by the national-conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP), which has the largest representation in the National Council, the lower house of the Swiss legislature.

The Swiss federal government does not support this idea, believing that in this case, the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the worst case, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will be under threat.

READ MORE: Switzerland to Probe 2 Russians Suspected of "Espionage" on Spiez Chemical Lab

If the proposals are approved in a referendum, the federal constitution will be recognised in Switzerland as the supreme source of law.

International human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have voiced opposition to this referendum. </s> Turkey held a referendum, April 16, on abolishing the office of prime minister and extending the powers of the presidency, including giving him powers to appoint members of the judiciary, which many critics — at home and abroad — saw as a power grab by Erdogan.

Now, following a preliminary report into the referendum by the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the EU has called on Turkey to investigate irregularities in voting.

"Our monitoring showed the 'Yes' campaign dominated the media coverage and this, along with restrictions on the media, the arrests of journalists and the closure of media outlets, reduced voters' access to a plurality of views," said de Zulueta.

The CoE/OSCE report said: "Voters were not provided with impartial information about key aspects of the reform, and civil society organizations were not able to participate."

​"The 18 proposed amendments affecting 72 articles of the constitution were voted on as a single package, contrary to international good practice for referenda. Voters did not have the opportunity to make a choice about each of the distinct issues featured in the amendments," the report said.

"None of the proposed amendments featured on the ballot; voters were simply asked to vote for a yes or no option. The state did not ensure that voters were provided with impartial or balanced information on the amendments and their potential impact, thus limiting their ability to make an informed choice." </s> A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all, if for example the Brexit negotiations resulted in an unfavourable deal.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 per cent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, spearheaded by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, rejected the earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments can be developed.

Once such a hearing has taken place, a decision will be made on whether the case should be referred to the ECJ.

If it ultimately requests the ECJ clarify the issue, the Luxembourg-based court will be "bound to reply to the questions asked," the court said.

The petitioners argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.

The British government argues that the question of whether it alone can stop Brexit is irrelevant, since the issue was decided by the 2016 referendum and there are no plans for a second referendum.

The petitioners have said they will go all the way to Britain's Supreme Court if necessary. </s> THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Supporters of the International Criminal Court appealed for unity Wednesday in the aftermath of three African nations announcing plans to withdraw and Russia symbolically turning its back on the court.

The departures of the African states — South Africa, Burundi and Gambia — buzzed through the corridors on the first day of the annual meeting of the court's member states, the Assembly of States Parties, in The Hague. Before their announcements, no country had ever left the court, which was set up in 2002 as the first criminal tribunal with a global reach.

Russia snubbed the court Wednesday when President Vladimir Putin signed a decree to withdraw from the court. However Moscow never ratified the Rome Statute that created the court, despite signing the treaty in 2000, meaning Russia wasn't a member.

The court's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, sought to downplay the impact of the departures, saying, "this is not a crisis for the Rome Statute system, but a set-back in our joint efforts towards achieving a more peaceful and just world."

Bensouda, who comes from Gambia, said that "to address these crimes and deliver justice to victims across the world, it is essential that states' participation in the Rome Statute is not only maintained and reinforced, but enlarged."

Canadian Foreign Minister Stephane Dion used his speech to the 124-nation assembly to deliver an impassioned plea for support for the court, saying it is necessary to ensure accountability for those who commit the most serious crimes.

"We created the court together. We must keep it together," he said.

But South African Justice Minister Michael Mathura continued his country's criticism of the court, saying it is ignoring atrocities in other parts of the world. All but one of the court's full-scale investigations are in Africa, though the majority were referred to the court by the African countries themselves and two by the U.N. Security Council.

"They choose to turn a blind eye and rather focus on one geopolitical space to the exclusion of all others," Mathura told reporters in The Hague. "That, they must explain. The principle of universality of the application of rule of law has to be at the heart of the institution. If they are not willing to uphold that principle, their credibility will continue to be eroded."

The court has been criticized for not stepping in to prosecute atrocities in Syria, but it doesn't have automatic jurisdiction there as the country is not a member of the ICC. A resolution by the U.N. Security Council to refer the Syrian war to the ICC was vetoed in May 2014 by Russia and China.

The African anger also stems from the fact that the ICC went after two sitting heads of state in the continent, Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta and Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. The court ultimately withdrew all charges against Kenyatta while al-Bashir remains a fugitive.

Human Rights Watch urged member states not to water down the court's core principles, such as its refusal to recognize head of state immunity, in a bid to prevent more departures.

"The ICC withdrawals risk becoming a bargaining chip by countries looking to make the world safer for abusive dictators," said Elizabeth Evenson, HRW's associate international justice director. She urged ICC members to "make clear the court's mandate is not up for sale."

Putin's decree, published on the Kremlin's website, came a day after the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee condemned Russia's "temporary occupation of Crimea" and blamed Russia for rights abuses such as discrimination against some Crimean residents.

Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014 from Ukraine following a hastily called referendum, a move that led to crippling Western sanctions. A separatist insurgency erupted in eastern Ukraine the following month, backed by Russia.

The ICC on Monday issued a preliminary report where it described what happened in Crimea as "an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation."

"Russia never demonstrated any genuine intention to ratify the Rome Statute, and this announcement appears as nothing but contempt for the aims of the ICC - putting an end to impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity - and is an affront to all victims of these appalling crimes," Sergei Nikitin, Director of Amnesty International Russia, said in a statement.

Associated Press writer Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report. </s> Court Blocks South Africa's Withdrawal From International Criminal Court

Enlarge this image toggle caption Mike Corder/AP Mike Corder/AP

A South African court has ruled that the country's bid to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is "unconstitutional and invalid," in a stark rebuke to the government of President Jacob Zuma.

"South Africa's justice minister shocked the country last October when he announced it would pull out of the International Criminal Court," Peter Granitz reports for NPR from Pretoria. He notes that it was especially surprising because South Africa was a founding member of the court, which prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Wednesday's court order from the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria focused on how South Africa initiated its withdrawal from the ICC's treaty, the Rome Statute. The court said the executive did not have the power to do so without prior parliamentary approval.

"What is so pressing for the national executive about the withdrawal from the Rome Statute which cannot wait for our legislative processes (and possibly judicial pronouncements) to take their course?" the ruling read. "This unexplained haste, in our view, itself constitutes procedural irrationality."

The court did not rule on whether South Africa should withdraw from the treaty, stating that the decision is "policy-laden, and one residing in the heartland of the national executive in the exercise of foreign policy, international relations and treaty-making."

The Democratic Alliance, the opposition party which filed the case, called the outcome a "victory for the rule of law." It stated that "South Africa does not want to be lumped together with pariah states who have no respect for human rights and who do not subscribe to accountability for those guilty of the most heinous human rights violations."

South Africa announced its intention to leave the court after the government "refused to detain indicted war criminal Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir at an African Union summit in 2015, despite an ICC warrant for his arrest," NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton explained. It takes one year for a withdrawal to take effect after initial notification, according to the terms of the Rome Statute.

South Africa made its announcement last year amid accusations that the court is biased against Africans, as The Two-Way has reported:

"Every person tried by the ICC since the treaty creating it was adopted in 1998 has been African. "Other war crimes trials have been carried out by ad hoc tribunals created after a specific conflict, such as those created for Yugoslavia and Cambodia, or for the Nuremberg trials conducted after World War II."

Gambia and Burundi also announced last year that they were withdrawing from the court, but Gambia's new leader reversed that decision earlier this month.

In South Africa, the current government has vowed to continue its efforts to pull out of the ICC. "The intention to withdraw still stands, as this is a policy decision of the executive," Justice Minister Michael Masutha told Reuters.

As the BBC reports, "the government may choose to appeal the judgment, or it may simply do as the judges ordered and take the proposal to parliament where the governing African National Congress (ANC) continues to enjoy a comfortable majority." </s> A legal attempt by anti-Brexit campaigners to establish that Britain could unilaterally reverse Brexit was given a boost on Tuesday by Scotland's top court, which said it wants to examine the case in greater depth.

The group behind the legal challenge, who include pro-EU Scottish lawmakers, want to show that Britain could stay in the European Union after all -- if, for example, the final terms of Brexit negotiated by the government were rejected by parliament.

The campaigners are ultimately seeking a formal opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) asserting that Britain could reverse its decision to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that kickstarted the Brexit process.

They argue that once the terms of Brexit have been negotiated, Britain's sovereign parliament may well decide not to go ahead with it, so lawmakers need to know in advance if that is legally possible.

As things stand, there is no suggestion of a change of course over Brexit, which British voters backed by 52 to 48 percent in a June 2016 referendum. The ruling Conservative Party and main opposition Labour Party are both committed to Britain leaving the European Union.

The legal case, headed by anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maugham, had been rejected by a lower Scottish court.

The British government argued that the question of whether Britain could unilaterally stop Brexit was irrelevant because the will of the voters was clear and the government was not going to back out of Brexit.

On Tuesday, the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, overturned an earlier ruling, saying the case raised important issues and there should be a full hearing so all the arguments could be debated.

"The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance," the Court of Session said, referring to the Article 50 process which started in March 2017.

"On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence(lawmakers) in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union(Withdrawal) Bill."

Once a full hearing has taken place in Edinburgh, a decision will be made on whether to refer it to the ECJ, the court said, although it may ultimately decide that it should not.

If the Scottish court decided not to refer to the ECJ, the petitioners can take their appeal to Britain's Supreme Court.

They argue that while there is no doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 members, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not. </s> MPs must get a vote on whether Britain leaves Europe, the high court has ruled today.

In a shock move, three senior judges have ruled the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Brexit despite the referendum decision.

They say that Parliament must vote on the issue before Theresa May can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK's exit from the European Union.

It is a surprise victory for campaigners who were seeking to challenge the Brexit decision - who say that Parliament must also be consulted.

The ruling against the Government was made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, sitting with two other senior judges in London.

Ministers will appeal against a High Court ruling that Theresa May does not have the power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit, a Government spokesman said.

Unless overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court, the ruling threatens to plunge the Government's plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people" who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum.

But the Lord Chief Justice declared: "The Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The Government has been given the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court but made no immediate announcement about whether it will.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said the Government is "disappointed" at the High Court decision on Article 50 adding "the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum".

"The Government is disappointed by the court's judgement," he said.

"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Acts of Parliament. The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.

"This judgment raises important and complex matters of law and it's right that we consider it carefully before deciding how to proceed."

He added: "I have nothing to add other than to reiterate that it's right that the Government will consider carefully before deciding how to proceed following the judgment."

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron welcomed the news, adding: "It is disappointing that this Government was so intent on undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they forced this decision to be made in the court, but I welcome the news today that MPs will get to vote on the triggering of Article 50.

"Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the Government now lay out their negotiating strategy to Parliament, before such a vote is held.

"So far May's team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritising what is best for Britain, and it's time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously.

"Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

But interim Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he was worried that politicians were attempting to block or delay Brexit and warned that such a move would provoke huge public anger.

"I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand," he said. "Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June referendum result."

"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

The pound rose sharply immediately after the ruling as the international markets reacted to the news.

Neil Wilson, markets analyst at ETX Capital, said: "Most MPs are natural Remainers, although they would face intense pressure from constituents to deliver the referendum mandate." </s> KIGALI, Rwanda -- Lawmakers in Burundi overwhelmingly voted Wednesday in support of a plan to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, something no country has ever done.

The decision escalates a bitter dispute with the international community over the human-rights situation in the East African country, which has seen more than a year of deadly violence after President Pierre Nkurunziza made a controversial decision to pursue a third term.

No state has withdrawn from the court, according to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, a nonprofit that supports the court's work. The court prosecutes cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"We are very alarmed about the trajectory the country is taking," the U.N. human-rights chief, Zeid Raad al-Hussein, said.

Ninety-four out of 110 Burundi lawmakers voted in favor of the withdrawal plan, months after the court announced it would investigate the country's ongoing violence.

The decision, which also was unanimously adopted by the Senate, now needs the president's approval.

U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said withdrawing from the court would "isolate Burundi from its neighbors and the international community at a time when accountability, transparency and engaged dialogue are most needed."

Some African countries have threatened a withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court, accusing the court of disproportionately targeting the continent.

Only Africans have been charged in the six cases that are ongoing or about to begin, though preliminary investigations have been opened elsewhere in the world.

"Burundi civil society is clear that their government is withdrawing from democracy, human rights and the rule of law, not the ICC," said William Pace, convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. He added that "African governments overwhelmingly voted for and ratified the treaty, stating that they did not want a repeat of the Rwandan genocide, where there was a breakdown in the rule of law and justice."

Of the 124 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, 34 are African, the largest continental bloc. The United States is not a party to the treaty.

Burundi's decision is not immediate. Observers say a county wishing to withdraw from the court must write to the U.N. secretary-general stating its intention, and the withdrawal takes effect a year after the day the secretary-general receives the letter.

No such letter had yet been received, said the spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, Stephane Dujarric. He pointed out that Burundi still would have to cooperate with any court proceedings that begin before the withdrawal takes effect.

Vital Nshimirimana, a Burundian rights activist, urged the U.N. to challenge the government's decision.

"Already, we have information that intelligence agents are torturing, killing Burundians behind closed doors," he said. "The world ought to rescue the people of Burundi."

Burundi's government has repeatedly said it is the victim of propaganda by exiles and opponents who want to diminish its credibility.

Hundreds have died in Burundi since Nkurunziza last year pursued and won a third term that many call unconstitutional. Since the ruling party announced his candidacy in April 2015, Burundi has seen violent street protests, forced disappearances and assassinations. More than 260,000 have fled.

On Monday, Burundi's government banned three U.N. human rights investigators from entering the country after the release of a report that cited numerous rights violations allegedly perpetrated by security agencies.

The push among some African countries to withdraw from the court began after the court indicted Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta on charges of crimes against humanity for 2007 postelection violence in which more than 1,000 died. The court's prosecutor said threats to witnesses, bribery and lack of cooperation by Kenya's government led to the case's collapse.

Some countries want a separate African court with jurisdiction over rights abuses.

Information for this article was contributed by Mike Corder, Jamey Keaten, Michael Astor and Matthew Lee of The Associated Press.
A referendum to give national law precedence over international law fails.