Australia said Friday it will challenge Japan's whale hunting in the Antarctic at the International Court of Justice, a major legal escalation in its campaign to ban the practice despite Tokyo's insistence on the right to so-called scientific whaling.

Japan's Foreign Ministry called the action regrettable at a time when 88 member-nations of the International Whaling Commission were discussing a proposal that could allow some limited whaling for the first time in 25 years.

"We will continue to explain that the scientific whaling that we are conducting is lawful in accordance with Article 8 of the international convention for the regulation of whaling," said Japan's Foreign Ministry Deputy Press Secretary Hidenobu Sobashima. "If it goes to the court, we are prepared to explain that."

Japan, Norway and Iceland, which harpoon around 2,000 whales annually, argue that many species are abundant enough to continue hunting them. They are backed by around half of the whaling commission's members.

Australia has declared the southern seas a whale sanctuary and has long lobbied for an end to whaling there. The government says Japan's hunt is in breach of international obligations, but has declined to release any details of how it will argue its case before the court in The Hague.

The whaling commission has proposed a plan that would allow hunting without specifying whether it is for commercial or other purposes — but under strict quotas that are lower than the current number of hunted whales.

Commission Chairman Cristian Maquieira expressed optimism Thursday in Washington that the issue could be resolved at a meeting next month in Morocco. But senior U.S. official Monica Medina said the current proposal would allow the hunting of too many whales, signaling difficult negotiations ahead.

Prosecutors trying former Liberian president Charles Taylor for war crimes at a U.N.-backed court asked judges Thursday to subpoena supermodel Naomi Campbell to testify about being given uncut diamonds by Taylor.

Special Court for Sierra Leone Prosecutor Brenda Hollis filed a motion saying Taylor allegedly gave Campbell diamonds at a reception in South Africa in September 1997. Taylor denies prosecutors' allegations that he provided arms and ammunition to brutal rebels during Sierra Leone's civil war in exchange for so-called blood diamonds.

Campbell's testimony would provide "direct evidence of the accused's possession of rough diamonds from a witness unrelated to the Liberian or Sierra Leone conflicts," Hollis said in the motion.

She adds that Taylor "denied ever having possessed rough diamonds and the evidence clearly contradicts his testimony on this central issue."

The U.N.'s highest court says Honduras has dropped a case accusing Brazil of meddling in its internal affairs by allowing ousted President Manuel Zelaya to stay at one of its embassies in 2009.

The International Court of Justice, widely known as the World Court, said Wednesday that Honduras asked to withdraw the case on April 30 and the request was granted May 12.

An intermim administration that came to power in Honduras after a coup filed the case back October 2009 while Zelaya was holed up at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Brazil then viewed Zelaya as Honduras' lawfully elected president.

Zelaya now lives in the Dominican Republic and is trying to negotiate a reconciliation that recognizes current Honduran President Porfirio Lobo.

The Supreme Court says an American mother illegally moved her son from Chile to the United States during a custody dispute with the boy's British father.

The high court on Monday said an international child custody treaty demands that the child goes back to the South American country.

The parents separated in Chile, and the courts there had granted the father visitation rights. But the mother fled with the boy to Texas and filed for divorce. She asked the court there to change the father's visitation rights. The father asked that the boy be returned to Chile.

The justices say the mother can argue in the lower courts that her safety may be at risk in Chile. That is an exception that can overrule the requirement that the child be returned to Chile.

The Spanish judge who became an international hero by going after Augusto Pinochet and Osama bin Laden was suspended Friday for allegedly abusing his authority by investigating what is arguably Spain's own biggest unresolved case: atrocities committed during and after its ruinous Civil War.

The punishment could effectively end Judge Baltasar Garzon's career.

The unanimous decision by a judicial oversight board, the General Council of the Judiciary, was made during an emergency meeting about Garzon, said its spokeswoman, Gabriela Bravo.

Supporters chanted, cheered and clapped later as Garzon emerged from the nearby National Court, where he works. He hugged co-workers and appeared to be holding back tears before getting into a bulletproof limousine and riding away.

Garzon, 54, famous worldwide for his cross-border justice cases, has been removed from his post pending his trial on charges of knowingly going beyond the limits of his jurisdiction in 2008 by investigating the execution or disappearance of more than 100,000 civilians at the hands of supporters of Gen. Francisco Franco during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War or in the early years of the Franco dictatorship.

Germany's top criminal court ruled Wednesday that Internet users need to secure their private wireless connections by password to prevent unauthorized people from using their Web access to illegally download data.

Internet users can be fined up to euro100 ($126) if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected WLAN connection to illegally download music or other files, the Karlsruhe-based court said in its verdict.

"Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation," the court said.

But the court stopped short of holding the users responsible for the illegal content the third party downloads themselves.

The court also limited its decision, ruling that users could not be expected to constantly update their wireless connection's security — they are only required to protect their Internet access by setting up a password when they first install it.

The national consumer protection agency said the verdict was balanced.