By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – A Russian-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution that called on all countries to prevent “for all time” the placement, threat or use of weapons in outer space failed on Monday with the 15-member body split over the move.

The draft failed to get the minimum nine votes needed – seven members voted in favor of the draft, seven against, while one abstained. A veto can only be cast by the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France if a draft gets at least nine votes.

Russia put forward the text after it vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution last month that called on countries to prevent an arms race in outer space. The Russian veto prompted the United States to question if Moscow was hiding something.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols)

Marriage is usually talked about in terms of love and relationships—the intensity of emotion you feel toward one another, and the safety and security of finding your Person and knowing you’ll spend the rest of your life with them.

Except, of course, that the time spent married is typically less than a decade—most marriages in the U.S. end after about seven years. Most marriages end in divorce—about half of all first marriages wind up in divorce court, and that rate skyrockets with second (67%) and third (73%) marriages.

That’s why it’s important to remember that marriage is a legally binding contract as much as it is a symbolic joining of two souls. Viewed like that, stuff like pre-nuptial agreements don’t seem so cold and brutal; they can be a godsend if your marriage is one of those that don’t make it. If you’ve already gotten married, it’s not too late to get rational about your partnership and enshrine your mutual understanding in writing, though. You can always draw up a post-nuptial agreement.

Post-nuptial agreements

A post-nuptial agreement is exactly what it sounds like: a legal agreement between spouses that you create and sign after you’re already married. You might enter into one because you didn’t create a pre-nuptial agreement and want to clarify things, or your financial situation has changed and now you feel the need to formalize some understandings. The crucial difference is the focus of the document: A pre-nup is mostly focused on you as an individual, with no implied obligation to your spouse—it protects the assets you already had before the marriage. A post-nup explicitly deals with your obligation to your spouse.

Post-nuptial agreements typically outline a few common aspects of your legal and financial responsibilities to each other:

• Inventory and division of assets. A post-nup will typically clearly state who owns what, and how the assets will be divided in the case of divorce. This can range from property like a home to investments to a family-owned business. For example, if the couple has a shared investment portfolio but one spouse contributes 75% of the money invested in it, the post-nup could specify that the funds will be split 75-25 in case of divorce, which can spare you a lot of squabbling.

• Allocation of debts and other obligations. A post-nup can also clearly define who will be responsible for debts that are currently shared within the marriage. If you took out a large loan, for example, or have a car payment or mortgage, the post-nup defines who carries that debt if the marriage is dissolved.

• Alimony and support. A post-nup can also define future financial arrangements, like spousal support. For example, if one spouse stops working in order to care for children and take care of the home, the post-nup could define the earnings they sacrificed and require the other spouse to pay support. This can make a partner feel more secure in their choice to give up a career.

A post-nuptial agreement can also contain provisions for future property and financial windfalls. For example, it can specify that any property acquired by either partner after signing the post-nup will be considered their individual asset and not a shared one. You can also define how inheritances will be handled, or how large gifts will be handled. For example, if one spouse’s parents gave the couple a large monetary gift in order to purchase a house, the post-nup can define whether the other spouse should repay their share of that gift or if it should be forgiven and considered moot.

One thing you can’t put in a post-nuptial agreement is custody arrangements. Even if both partners agree on plans for children in the case of divorce, the actual decisions surrounding custody and support are almost always reserved for the court to decide based on the best interests of the child. Even if you try to codify custody and support in your post-nup, it won’t be enforceable unless a court agrees with you on every point.

How to create a post-nuptial agreement

Post-nuptial agreements can be a murky area of the law, depending on where you live. Some states have clear legal guidelines for them; other states have very little precedent. Your best bet is always to engage the services of an experienced family lawyer when crafting one to ensure it will be enforceable in your state.

Generally speaking, however, as long as the agreement satisfies some basic principles you’ll be fine. The agreemnet should be:

• In writing. The agreement has to be in writing—an “understanding” or oral contract, even if affirmed by both parties, is usually not going to cut it. And both parties must sign the agreement in a legally acceptable way.

• Voluntary and just. Neither partner can be pressured or compelled into signing the post-nuptial agreement. For example, if one partner threatens to leave the other penniless unless they sign an agreement that strongly favors them, that agreement is most likely unenforceable.

  Similarly, the terms of the agreement must usually also be reasonable and fair. Even if both sides agree, if the courts find any provisions to be unconscionable or unjust the agreement may be rejected.

• Comprehensive. Post-nuptial agreements have to fully disclose all relevant information. Hiding assets or other information can render the whole agreement unenforceable.

Like pre-nuptial agreements, post-nups don’t only apply to troubled marriages. These agreements can create a sense of security for both partners by providing clear guidelines, an inventory of assets, and other ground rules for the marriage. Plus, since these agreements remove much of the financial uncertainty surrounding divorce, they can also help couples focus more on the emotional bonds between them and the relationship, because they don’t have to worry about maneuvering financially to protect themselves.

• WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces a court hearing in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or provide him with another chance to appeal his extradition.
• The U.S. has assured judges that Assange’s rights would be protected and that he would not face the death penalty in the event of extradition, but Assange’s legal team argues they are not good enough to rely on.
• Assange was indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over his website’s publication of classified U.S. documents almost 15 years ago.

Julian Assange faced a key hearing Monday in the High Court in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or could provide him another chance to appeal his extradition.

The WikiLeaks founder, who has spent the past five years in a British prison, was not in court to hear his fate being debated. He did not attend for health reasons, his lawyer Edward Fitzgerald said.

The outcome of the hearing will depend on how much weight judges give to assurances U.S. officials have provided that Assange’s rights won’t be trampled if he goes on trial.

AUSTRALIAN LAWMAKERS SEND LETTER URGING BIDEN TO DROP CASE AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE ON WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

In March, two judges rejected the bulk of Assange’s arguments but said he could take his case to the Court of Appeal unless the U.S. guaranteed he would not face the death penalty if extradited and would have the same free speech protections as a U.S. citizen.

The court said that if Assange, who is an Australian citizen, couldn’t rely on the First Amendment then it was arguable his extradition would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which also provides free speech and media protections.

The U.S. has provided those reassurances, though Assange’s legal team and supporters argue they are not good enough to rely on to send him to the U.S. federal court system.

Protesters hold placards outside the High Court in London on May 20, 2024. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces a hearing Monday in the High Court in London that could end with him being sent to the U.S. to face espionage charges, or provide him with another chance to appeal his extradition. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

The U.S. said Assange could seek to rely on the rights and protections of the First Amendment but that a decision on that would ultimately be up to a judge. In the past, the U.S. said it would argue at trial that Assange is not entitled to the constitutional protection because he is not a U.S. citizen.

“The U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can ‘seek to raise’ the First Amendment if extradited,” his wife, Stella Assange, said. “The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family’s extreme distress about his future — his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism.”

Assange, 52, has been indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over his website’s publication of a trove of classified U.S. documents almost 15 years ago. American prosecutors allege that Assange encouraged and helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks published.

Commuters emerging from a Tube stop near the courthouse couldn’t miss a large sign bearing Assange’s photo and the words, “Publishing is not a crime. War crimes are.” Scores of supporters gathered outside the neo-Gothic Royal Courts of Justice chanting “Free Julian Assange” and “Press freedom, Assange freedom.”

Some held a large white banner aimed at President Joe Biden, exhorting: “Let him go Joe.”

Assange’s lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, though American authorities have said any sentence would likely be much shorter.

Assange’s family and supporters say his physical and mental health have suffered during more than a decade of legal battles, which includes seven years spent inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London from 2012 until 2019. He has spent the past five years in a British high-security prison.

Assange’s lawyers argued in February that he was a journalist who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sending him to the U.S., they said, would expose him to a politically motivated prosecution and risk a “flagrant denial of justice.”

The U.S. government says Assange’s actions went way beyond those of a journalist gathering information, amounting to an attempt to solicit, steal and indiscriminately publish classified government documents.

If Assange prevails Monday, it would set the stage for an appeal process likely to extend what has already been a long legal saga.

If the court accepts the word of the U.S., it would mark the end of Assange’s legal challenges in the U.K., though it’s unclear what would immediately follow.

His legal team is prepared to ask the European Court of Human Rights to intervene. But his supporters fear Assange could be transferred before the court in Strasbourg, France, could halt his removal.

Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson may also postpone issuing a decision.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

If Assange loses in court, he still may have another shot at freedom.

Biden said last month that he was considering a request from Australia to drop the case and let Assange return to his home country.

Officials provided no other details but Stella Assange said it was “a good sign” and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the comment was encouraging.