The 2021 Masters winner from Japan, once as high as No.2 in the official world golf ranking (OWGR), entered last week at No.55.

He hadn’t won a tournament since January 2022 and has struggled with a neck and back injury since Bay Hill in March that year.

With his final score of 17-under-par 267 at Riviera Country Club, Matsuyama rocketed 35 places up the board to sit in the top 20 for the first time in nearly a year.

His ninth PGA Tour win broke the record for Asian-born players he had previously shared with South Korea’s K.J. Choi.

The modest Matsuyama was surprised by his victory.

He started the final round six shots off the pace but ended the day breaking, by one shot, the Riviera record for best closing round by a winner, set by Doug Tewell in 1986.

“I was not feeling comfortable with my ball-striking. I was thinking, ‘Hey, I’m going to have a couple missed shots (on Sunday),'” Matsuyama told reporters via interpreter.

“But maybe that worked out.”

The top five in the OWGR remained the same on Monday, with Scottie Scheffler at No.1, followed by Rory McIlroy, Jon Rahm, Viktor Hovland and Xander Schauffele.

Former world No.1 Jason Day remains the highest-ranked Australian golfer, at 19th, with Min Woo Lee (42), Cam Smith (44) and Adam Scott (48) also in the top 50.

The OWGR does not award ranking points for LIV Golf events.

On Monday February 19, TUS announced that it had received maximum stars in all categories assessed under the popular university rating system, making it Ireland’s first university to have ever received five stars in the Arts and Culture category.

The QS university rating system is considered one of the most influential and credible ratings for universities internationally, as ratings are entirely based upon an institution’s performance. The advantage of this rating system is that it highlights for potential staff and students, as well as to future partners, the many areas in which TUS excels.

According to QS: “Employers generally recruit students from (5 Star) institutions directly after they’ve graduated. The performance of such institutions is considered as “Excellent” in the QS Stars rating system”.

The rating system evaluated TUS’s performances in eight categories, all of which received five stars, including: teaching, employability, internationalisation, academic development, online learning, programme strength, arts and culture, inclusiveness.

TUS, with campuses in Limerick (2), Athlone, Thurles, Clonmel and Ennis, including the world-renowned Limerick School of Art and Design (LSAD) is the first Irish university to achieve a 5 Star Arts and Culture rating.

TUS’s QS 5 Star rating is valid until February 2027 and follows a rigorous and independent data collection process and analysis of performance metrics by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS).

Announcing the news at a specially convened staff meeting, President of TUS Professor Vincent Cunnane said the results acknowledge the core values of TUS as a higher education institution:

“The fact that we have received the highest number of stars in what is considered one of the most influential and credible ratings for universities globally is a fitting acknowledgement of our commitment to a student-centred, inclusive university, that excels at academic development and providing work ready graduates”

“This recognition not only brings an international focus on TUS, but also the region we serve. Having received 5 Stars across all the categories assessed, TUS scored exceptionally high in the areas of international diversity and employment, with the scoring system taking into consideration the university’s strong reputation among employers, the graduate employment rate, and career service supports. This rating supports the finding of the HEA, that TUS has the highest percentage of honours degree graduates in the country in employment nine months after graduation.”

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Historic hearings opened on Monday at the United Nations’ top court into the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of lands sought for a Palestinian state.

The case stands against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war and it immediately became a focal point of the day — even though the hearings should center instead on Israel’s open-ended control over the occupied West Bank, the Gaza Strip and annexed east Jerusalem.

The session before the International Court of Justice is expected to last six days, following a request by the U.N. General Assembly for a non-binding advisory opinion into Israel’s policies in the occupied territories. Judges will likely take months to issue an opinion.

Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister Riyad al-Maliki opened the presentation by Palestinian representatives, scheduled to last all morning.

“I stand before you as 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, half of them children, are besieged and bombed, killed and maimed, starved and displaced,” al-Maliki said. “More than 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, including in Jerusalem, are subjected to colonization of their territory and racist violence that enables it.”

“The United Nations enshrined in its charter the rights of all peoples to self-determination and pledged to rid the world of the gravest breaches of this right, namely colonialism and apartheid,” al-Maliki continued. “Yet for decades, the Palestinian people have been denied this right and have endured both colonialism and apartheid.”

The Palestinians argue that Israel has violated the prohibition on territorial conquest by annexing large swaths of occupied land and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and has imposed a system of racial discrimination and apartheid.

“This occupation is annexation and supremacist in nature,” al-Maliki added. “It is a deliberate, cynical perversion of international law. … The only solution, consistent with international law is for this illegal occupation to come to an immediate, unconditional and total end.”

After the Palestinians’ address, an unprecedented 51 countries and three international organizations will speak. Israel is not scheduled to speak during the hearings, but could submit a written statement.

Yuval Shany, a law professor at Hebrew University and senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, said Israel will likely justify the ongoing occupation on security grounds, especially in the absence of a peace deal.

It is likely to point to the Oct. 7 attack in which Hamas-led militants from Gaza killed 1,200 people across southern Israel and dragged 250 hostages back to the territory.

However, Palestinians and leading rights groups argue that the occupation goes far beyond defensive measures. They say it has morphed into an apartheid system, bolstered by settlement building on occupied lands, that gives Palestinians second-class status and is designed to maintain Jewish hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Israel rejects any accusation of apartheid.

Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians seek all three areas for an independent state. Israel considers the West Bank to be disputed territory, whose future should be decided in negotiations.

It has built 146 settlements across the West Bank, according to watchdog group Peace Now, many of which resemble fully developed suburbs and small towns. The settlements are home to more than 500,000 Jewish settlers, while around 3 million Palestinians live in the territory.

Israel annexed east Jerusalem and considers the entire city to be its capital. An additional 200,000 Israelis live in settlements built in east Jerusalem that Israel considers to be neighborhoods of its capital. Palestinian residents of the city face systematic discrimination, making it difficult for them to build new homes or expand existing ones.

Israel withdrew all of its soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005, but continued to control the territory’s airspace, coastline and population registry. Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza when the Palestinian militant Hamas group seized power there in 2007.

The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements to be illegal. Israel’s annexation of east Jerusalem, home to the city’s most sensitive holy sites, is not internationally recognized.

It’s not the first time the court has been asked to give an advisory opinion on Israeli policies.

In 2004, it said a separation barrier Israel built through east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank was “contrary to international law.” It also called on Israel to immediately halt construction. Israel has ignored the ruling.

Also, late last month, the court ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in its campaign in Gaza. The order came at a preliminary stage of a case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide, a charge that Israel denied.

South Africa’s governing party, the African National Congress, has long compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank to the apartheid regime of white minority rule in South Africa, which restricted most Black people to “homelands” before ending in 1994.

___

Find more of AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war

The Hague, Netherlands:

The United Nations’ top court on Monday opens a week of hearings on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, with more than 50 states due to address the judges.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki will speak first in the legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

In 2022, the U.N. General Assembly asked the court for an advisory, or non-binding, opinion on the occupation.

While Israel has ignored such opinions in the past, it could pile on political pressure over its ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed about 29,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, since Oct.7.

Among countries scheduled to participate in the hearings are the United States – Israel’s strongest supporter, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt. Israel will not, although it has sent written observations.

The hearings are part of a Palestinian push to get international legal institutions to examine Israel’s conduct, which has become more urgent since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel, which killed 1,200 people, and Israel’s military response.

They also come amid mounting concerns about an Israeli ground offensive against the Gaza city of Rafah, a last refuge for more than a million Palestinians after they fled to the south of the enclave to avoid Israeli assaults.

Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem – areas of historic Palestine which the Palestinians want for a state – in the 1967 war. It withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but, along with neighbouring Egypt, still controls its borders.

It is the second time the U.N. General Assembly has asked the ICJ, also known as the World Court, for an advisory opinion related to the occupied Palestinian territory.

In July 2004, the court found that Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank violated international law and should be dismantled, though it still stands to this day.

Judges have now been asked to review Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation…including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures.”

Since 1967, Israel has greatly expanded Jewish settlements in the West Bank – an action Palestinians say compromises the creation of a viable Palestinian state. It has also annexed East Jerusalem in a move not recognised by most countries.

The General Assembly also asked the ICJ’s 15-judge panel to advise on how those policies and practices “affect the legal status of the occupation” and what legal consequences arise for all countries and the United Nations from this status.

The advisory opinion proceedings are separate from the genocide case that South Africa filed at the World Court against Israel for its alleged violations in Gaza of the 1948 Genocide Convention. In late January the ICJ in that case ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

The outcome of the advisory opinion would not be legally binding but would carry “great legal weight and moral authority,” according to the ICJ.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

America’s electoral financing system is based on private fundraising and emphasis on transparency, with a candidate allowed to accept up to USD 3,300 from any individual while the limit for party committees is USD 41,300, according to a top US Federal Election Commission official.

Ellen L Weintraub, Vice Chair of the US’s Federal Election Commission, spoke to PTI in an interview taken following the recent landmark ruling by India’s Supreme Court to scrap the central government’s electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, calling it “unconstitutional” and ordering disclosure of the bond’s donors, amount and recipients by March 13.

We have a system that is based on private fundraising, but public transparency. Most of the money is raised privately, but it does have to be disclosed on a regular basis, Weintraub said.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law.

The FEC, which is led by six Commissioners, has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the US House, Senate, Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Unlike the Election Commission of India, the FEC members are political appointees. The current FEC has three members each from the Republican and Democratic parties.

Refraining from commenting on the ruling of India’s Supreme Court, Weintraub, a Democrat, said that in the US, an individual candidate is allowed to accept up to USD 3,300 from a person for any election.

But this money should not be from foreign nationals, corporations or labour unions but from individual US citizens and Green Card holders.

The money is raised in multiple ways, including online, which is quite significant. They raise money in small increments of USD 3,300.

Many times, candidates can go back to the same voters as long as they don’t get more than USD 3,300 from any one person from one election, she said.

Then the party committees can separately raise money and their contribution limit is USD 41,300. Again, from individuals not from corporations, not organisations, and certainly not from foreign nationals. And all this money is disclosed.

“Anyone who gives more than USD 200; their name, their employer, their occupation, all of that gets disclosed to the candidates on the party committees and then the committees report that to the Federal Election Commission, and we post that information on our website, Weintraub said.

According to the latest figures released by the FEC, so far, all the 2024 presidential candidates have in total raised USD 381 million.

President Joe Biden, a Democrat, leads the list with nearly USD 90 million, followed by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump (about USD 80 million).

Indian-American politician Nikki Haley, who is the only other candidate in the race, so far has raised USD 36 million.

Our Supreme Court has held that this kind of transparency is important to having an informed electorate, Weintraub told PTI in response to a question while refraining from commenting on the Indian election fundraising system.

I don’t want to give advice to others, she said.

I don’t claim that our system is perfect. I think that different countries have evolved different systems. That’s fine. I do think that the transparency that we have is one of the strengths of our system. I’m proud of that aspect of it, Weintraub said.

However, several independent think tanks and experts believe that dark money including that coming from lobbying groups and foreign companies is also playing a significant role in electoral financing in the US.

The non-partisan, independent and non-profit Open Secrets released a report on foreign-influenced corporations’ money in State elections, according to which the top 33 foreign-influenced companies gave at least USD 1 million each across six US states, collectively accounting for about USD 134 million in giving between the 2018 and 2022 election cycles.

While America has long struggled under the weight of a deluge of spending, its once robust disclosure requirements have greatly atrophied. Today, dark money permeates the system, Milan Vaishnav, director and senior fellow of the South Asia Programme at the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told PTI in an interview.

Vaishnav has done important research on campaign financing.

Today, dark money permeates the systemsome non-profits are allowed to spend huge sums of money on political campaigns without disclosing the identities of their donors. By some estimates, this amounted to USD 1 billion in the 2020 US election, Vaishnav said.

Commenting on the ruling by India’s Supreme Court that came ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, Vaishnav said the Court’s unanimous decision to strike down the electoral bond scheme is welcome, if not long overdue.

At a time when countries should be moving toward greater transparency in political funding, the opacity of electoral bonds took India in the opposite direction, he said.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that the pre-bond status quo is hardly ideal. The government now has an opportunity to frame a new, more transparent finance regime that could really put the opposition on its heels. (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi could spin this defeat into a victory, Vaishnav said.

Leading Indian-American attorney Ravi Batra cited the example of Citizens United, a non-profit corporation.

In January 2010, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruling an earlier decision that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.

“For democracy to function, we must have political parties to offer up their best candidates that can champion what their party’s platform is. Political parties to do their necessary work require money – from the rich to the poor – be it USD 5 or USD 5 billion, Batra told PTI.

India’s Supreme Court’s holding, while altruistic, stands as a weak dam to hold back the citizenry of India’s powerful desire to do what they wish to do to support those they wish to support, he added.

According to OpenSecrets, there are currently nearly 2,000 political action committees (Super PACs).

In the 2022 midterm election SuperPACs or political action committees spent more than USD 1.3 billion, while in the 2020 presidential elections, SuperPACs raised USD 3.4 billion and spent USD 2.1 billion.

So far for the 2024 election cycles, Super PACs have raised nearly USD 1 billion and spent a little over USD 210 million.

WAASHINGTON/NEWYORK: America’s electoral financing system is based on private fundraising and emphasis on transparency, with a candidate allowed to accept up to USD 3,300 from any individual while the limit for party committees is USD 41,300, according to a top US Federal Election Commission official. Ellen L Weintraub, Vice Chair of the US’s Federal Election Commission, spoke to PTI in an interview taken following the recent landmark ruling by India’s Supreme Court to scrap the central government’s electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, calling it “unconstitutional” and ordering disclosure of the bond’s donors, amount and recipients by March 13.
“We have a system that is based on private fundraising, but public transparency. Most of the money is raised privately, but it does have to be disclosed on a regular basis,” Weintraub said.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law.
The FEC, which is led by six Commissioners, has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the US House, Senate, Presidency and Vice Presidency.
Unlike the Election Commission of India, the FEC members are political appointees. The current FEC has three members each from the Republican and Democratic parties.
Refraining from commenting on the ruling of India’s Supreme Court, Weintraub, a Democrat, said that in the US, an individual candidate is allowed to accept up to USD 3,300 from a person for any election.
But this money should not be from foreign nationals, corporations or labour unions but from individual US citizens and Green Card holders.
The money is raised in multiple ways, including online, which is quite significant. They raise money in small increments of USD 3,300.
Many times, candidates can go back to the same voters as long as they don’t get more than USD 3,300 from any one person from one election, she said.
“Then the party committees can separately raise money and their contribution limit is USD 41,300. Again, from individuals not from corporations, not organisations, and certainly not from foreign nationals. And all this money is disclosed.
“Anyone who gives more than USD 200; their name, their employer, their occupation, all of that gets disclosed to the candidates on the party committees and then the committees report that to the Federal Election Commission, and we post that information on our website,” Weintraub said.
According to the latest figures released by the FEC, so far, all the 2024 presidential candidates have in total raised USD 381 million.
President Joe Biden, a Democrat, leads the list with nearly USD 90 million, followed by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump (about USD 80 million).
Indian-American politician Nikki Haley, who is the only other candidate in the race, so far has raised USD 36 million.
“Our Supreme Court has held that this kind of transparency is important to having an informed electorate,” Weintraub told PTI in response to a question while refraining from commenting on the Indian election fundraising system.
“I don’t want to give advice to others,” she said.
“I don’t claim that our system is perfect. I think that different countries have evolved different systems. That’s fine. I do think that the transparency that we have is one of the strengths of our system. I’m proud of that aspect of it,” Weintraub said.
However, several independent think tanks and experts believe that dark money including that coming from lobbying groups and foreign companies is also playing a significant role in electoral financing in the US.
The non-partisan, independent and non-profit Open Secrets released a report on foreign-influenced corporations’ money in State elections, according to which the top 33 foreign-influenced companies gave at least USD 1 million each across six US states, collectively accounting for about USD 134 million in giving between the 2018 and 2022 election cycles.
“While America has long struggled under the weight of a deluge of spending, its once robust disclosure requirements have greatly atrophied. Today, dark money permeates the system,” Milan Vaishnav, director and senior fellow of the South Asia Programme at the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told PTI in an interview.
Vaishnav has done important research on campaign financing.
“Today, dark money permeates the system-some non-profits are allowed to spend huge sums of money on political campaigns without disclosing the identities of their donors. By some estimates, this amounted to USD 1 billion in the 2020 US election,” Vaishnav said.
Commenting on the ruling by India’s Supreme Court that came ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, Vaishnav said the Court’s unanimous decision to strike down the electoral bond scheme is welcome, if not long overdue.
“At a time when countries should be moving toward greater transparency in political funding, the opacity of electoral bonds took India in the opposite direction,” he said.
“The unfortunate reality, however, is that the pre-bond status quo is hardly ideal. The government now has an opportunity to frame a new, more transparent finance regime that could really put the opposition on its heels. (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi could spin this defeat into a victory,” Vaishnav said.
Leading Indian-American attorney Ravi Batra cited the example of Citizens United, a non-profit corporation.
In January 2010, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruling an earlier decision that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.
“For democracy to function, we must have political parties to offer up their best candidates that can champion what their party’s platform is. Political parties to do their necessary work require money – from the rich to the poor – be it USD 5 or USD 5 billion,” Batra told PTI.
Batra added that the US Supreme Court in the “Citizens United” case ruled that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
“This created ‘soft money’, which is undisclosed to the public, as opposed to ‘hard money’, which is disclosed, regulated and limited, but can be used by the candidate as she or he wishes,” Batra said.
India’s Supreme Court’s holding, while altruistic, stands as a weak dam to hold back the citizenry of India’s powerful desire to do what they wish to do to support those they wish to support, he added.
According to OpenSecrets, there are currently nearly 2,000 political action committees (Super PACs).
In the 2022 midterm election SuperPACs or political action committees spent more than USD 1.3 billion, while in the 2020 presidential elections, SuperPACs raised USD 3.4 billion and spent USD 2.1 billion.
So far for the 2024 election cycles, Super PACs have raised nearly USD 1 billion and spent a little over USD 210 million.