A car ferry officer has walked free from court after being cleared of any involvement in the deaths of three sailors who died in the English Channel when their yacht sank without a trace.

Michael Hubble, 62, said he would now get on with his life and go back to sea.

He was formally cleared of endangering the lives of James Meaby, 36, Jason Downer, 35, and Rupert Saunders, 36, at Winchester Crown Court when the jury told the judge they could not reach verdicts.

The men died when their yacht the Ouzo sank off the Isle of Wight in August last year.

On Wednesday Hubble, of Wine House Lane, Capel-le-Ferne, Folkestone, Kent, was found not guilty of the sailors' manslaughter by the jury.

The seven women and five men told the judge, Mr Justice Owen, they could not agree on verdicts on three lesser charges, under the Merchant Shipping Act, of engaging in conduct as a seaman that was likely to cause death or serious injury to the men.

The judge then discharged the jury after 33 hours of deliberating. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed they would not seek a re-trial as it was not in the public interest.

Speaking outside court Hubble said: "The families of the men have my deepest sympathy but the demise of those men was nothing to do with me, or any action of mine or the Pride of Bilbao. I have never done anything negligent in my life."

Mr Hubble's solicitor, Kerry King, added: "We are extremely pleased with the outcome. Mr Hubble has always maintained that the decision he made as the officer on watch was the correct one."

Hubble was in charge on board the 37,500-tonne P&O ferry Pride of Bilbao when the prosecution alleged he turned "a blind eye" to the close quarters incident with the 25ft Ouzo in the early hours of August 21. Hubble denied both the manslaughter and the Merchant Shipping Act charges.

"It will be imperative that he speak in strong, unambiguous terms as to his support for this court and for this court's arrest warrants," Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch, said Friday.

Without a tough message from Ban, the Sudanese government may get the idea they "can flout this court at will without facing repercussions from the leadership of the United Nations," Dicker said. "If that were to happen, it would make more difficult the prospect of justice for victims for absolutely horrific crimes."

The court came into being in July 2002, but Sudan is not among the 105 countries that have endorsed the 1998 Rome treaty that established it.

The Security Council referred the Darfur case — charging a cabinet minister and a janjaweed chief with crimes against humanity — to the court in 2005 in a resolution that required Sudan's government and all other parties in the conflict to cooperate. Sudan later agreed to set up its own investigation and a special court for Darfur.

In his speech Monday, Ban is expected to "urge all member states to do everything within their powers to assist the court in enforcing the outstanding warrants" in Darfur and to praise the court for becoming "a centerpiece of our system of international criminal justice," said associate U.N. spokesman Yves Sorokobi.

The conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region has claimed over 200,000 lives and uprooted 2.5 million people from their homes since violence erupted in early 2003 when rebels from the ethnic African majority took up arms against the Arab-dominated government. Critics accuse Sudan of retaliating by arming local Arab militias known as the janjaweed, and the government is blamed for widespread atrocities against civilians.

The court's meeting opened Friday with tough words from its president and its chief prosecutor on bringing charges against Ahmed Muhammed Harun, who was appointed Sudan's humanitarian affairs minister after his indictment was announced, and Ali Kushayb, a janjaweed leader.

"The arrest warrants and the obligation to enforce them will not go away," Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor, told the meeting.

Judge Philippe Kirsch, the court's president, noted the potential impact on the court's credibility because the warrants it issued in early May for the arrest and surrender of the two suspects have not yet been executed.

"Without arrests, there can be no trials. Without trials, victims will again be denied justice. The potential deterrent effect of the court will be reduced," Kirsch told the meeting.

Kirsch told the meeting that Ban's anticipated presence on Monday "reaffirms the importance of this special relationship" between the U.N. and the court, which is a tribunal of last resort for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

"The strength of support we receive during this meeting from the states and the United Nations, of course, strengthens the credibility of the court," Jurg Lauber, the court's chief of staff, told The Associated Press.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, told the AP on Friday that because Sudan is not a party to the court, its jurisdiction does not apply and its prosecutor was making "impossible demands, acting on behalf of the enemies of the peace and stability in the country."

Mohamad said Sudan also "should not be subject to the politicization of the Security Council."

Will Sudan turn over the two people indicted by the court?

"We will never turn over our citizens to be tried abroad," Mohamad said. "If there are accusations against any of our citizens, the judiciary in Sudan is more than capable."

The Supreme Court of the State of New York yesterday ruled against Alinghi, the Swiss defenders of the America’s Cup, upholding the legal challenge of BMW Oracle Racing (BOR) and making the American team the official challengers for the trophy.

Justice Herman Cahn’s 18-page judgment in the case of the Golden Gate Yacht Club v Société Nautique de Genève (the teams’ representative yacht clubs) was damning of Alinghi and agreed with BOR’s central contention that Club Nautico Español de Vela’s (CNEV) status as official challenger — which allowed it to negotiate the much disputed parameters of the next America’s Cup with Alinghi — is illegal.

BOR argued that the Spanish syndicate was an invalid challenger since it has never held a regatta as required in the regulations. Yesterday’s ruling means that BOR have the right to a head-to-head, best-of-three race against Alinghi, with ten months’ notice, in a type of yacht and a location of their choice. That is the scenario laid out in the Deed of Gift, the 19th-century document in which the rules of the America’s Cup are enshrined.

The simplest solution for both teams, and the seven other challengers (at least two others are also waiting in the wings), will be for Alinghi and BOR to agree to the original schedule of the 2009 America’s Cup in Valencia, but with a new protocol that hands some power back to the challengers. Six dark months after what was arguably the best America’s Cup staged, there is finally the opportunity for peace.

The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has not ratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, is not bound by its mandatory emissions caps.

“Today the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice,” Mr. Ban said of the report, the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In Bali, I expect the world’s policymakers to do the same.”

He added, “The breakthrough needed in Bali is for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can embrace.”

Although Mr. Ban has no power to enforce members of the United Nations to act, his statements on Saturday increased the pressure on the United States and China, participants here said.

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gases had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster, which could leave island nations submerged and abandoned, reduce African crop yields by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

The panel’s fourth and final report summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of a climate-science review that were released between January and April. Because the data had not previously been reviewed as a whole, scientists said the synthesized report was more explicit, creating new emphasis and alarm.

The first section of the review had covered climate trends; the second, the world’s ability to adapt to a warming planet; the third, strategies for reducing carbon emissions. With their mission concluded, the hundreds of IPCC scientists spoke more freely than they had previously.

“The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking,” said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report. “I’ve come out of this process more pessimistic about the possibilities than I thought I would.”

The panel, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month, said the world would have to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to prevent serious climate disruptions.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

He said that since the IPCC began its work five years ago, scientists had recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of Arctic ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

Saturday’s synthesis report was reviewed and approved by delegates from 130 nations gathered here this week. But unlike the earlier reviews, in which governments had insisted on changes that diluted the reports’ impact, this time scientists and environmental groups said there had been no major dilution of the data.

For example, this report’s summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperatures could result in a substantive sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

“Many of my colleagues would consider that kind of melt a catastrophe” so rapid that mankind would not be able to adapt, said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University who contributed to the IPCC.

“It’s extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “We can’t afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can’t afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now.”

He said that delegates in Bali should take action immediately where they agree, for example, on public financing for new technologies like capturing emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and pumping it underground. He said energy ministers should start a global fund to help poor countries avoid deforestation, which releases greenhouse gases and reduces the uptake of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.

United Nations officials pointed out that strong policies were needed, like increasing the energy efficiency of cars and setting up carbon markets, a system that essentially forces companies and countries to pay for the cost of the greenhouse gases they emit.

The European Union already has such a carbon trading system in place for many industries, and is fighting to bring airlines into the plan.

“Stabilization of emissions can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that exist or are already under development,” said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program.

But he noted that developed countries would have to help poorer ones adapt to climate shifts and adopt cleaner energy choices, which are often expensive.

Mr. Steiner emphasized that the report sent a message to individuals as well as world leaders: “What we need is a new ethic in which every person changes lifestyle, attitude and behavior.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s reaction to the report was muted. At a news conference Friday night after the report was approved, James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, said President Bush had agreed with leaders of the other major industrialized nations that “the issue warrants urgent action, and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible.”

He declined to say how much warming the administration considered acceptable, saying, “We don’t have a view on that.”

Mr. Connaughton acknowledged that the United States, like other nations, had tried to make some changes to the draft. Dr. Sharon L. Hays, the leader of the American delegation here, said the goal was not political but “to make sure the final report matches the science.” She noted that the United States had invested $12 billion in climate research since 2001.

Stephanie Tunmore, a member of Greenpeace International who had observer status as the countries debated the text, questioned that explanation.

She said, for example, that the United States had tried to remove a section of the report titled “Reasons for Concern,” which listed consequences of climate change that are either likely or possible. One was the melting of ice sheets, which the panel said could take place more rapidly than previously thought.

The Americans argued that there was no reason to include the section, because all of it was contained somewhere in the previous IPCC technical documents, she said. But the section remained in the report.

A face-off begins this coming week among the world's major powers over whether to impose new economic sanctions to pressure Iran into suspending its nuclear-fuel program.

Weeks of shadow diplomacy will start to gel on Thursday, when the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, meets in Vienna to debate the IAEA's latest report on Iranian cooperation with inspections of its fuel program. Iran says its program is purely civilian. The U.S. and its European allies believe it is for weapons.

The positions of the U.N.'s big powers are already well staked out. The U.S., Britain and France want the U.N. Security Council to impose a third round of much tougher sanctions on Iran. China and Russia are reluctant. Twice already, when Iran failed to meet suspension deadlines, the Security Council has worked out a middle road of relatively low-impact sanctions. This time, as an end-of-month deadline for Iran to suspend enrichment approaches, reaching agreement is likely to be harder.

One reason is that the Security Council's strategy has been questioned lately. That strategy is to pressure Iran to suspend its fuel program, so it can't develop the know-how to make fuel for nuclear warheads even as it negotiates guarantees of the fuel program's peaceful nature. The IAEA's chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, in May said the strategy had become pointless. Iran already has the know-how, he said.

The Egyptian-born diplomat then made his own parallel proposals to Tehran, asking the Iranians to come clean on questions about how its decades-old covert nuclear program was developed. Mr. ElBaradei circulated his progress report on that effort Thursday. It said the Iranians are being more transparent but are still holding back some information and have accelerated their enrichment program.

The common international front on Iran, always shaky, shows growing stress. Russia and China have been angered by U.S. saber-rattling and unilateral sanctions, as well as by threats from France and Britain that Europe could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran's oil and finance industries if the Security Council doesn't act. That Security Council vote is scheduled for December.

China Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, visiting Tehran earlier this past week, said further sanctions would do "no good." Russian media and trade publications have widely reported that Iran has begun talks to buy more than 200 Russian SU-30 fighter jets and 40 Chinese J-10 aircraft to modernize its obsolete air force. Iran has neither confirmed nor denied the talks. China this past week scuttled a meeting on Iran of senior diplomats from the major powers, scheduled for Monday in Brussels, citing a schedule conflict, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.

"There has been dragging of feet by the Chinese" on a new council resolution, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters in New York Thursday, warning Beijing that if it blocked further U.N. sanctions, it would be responsible for the failure of diplomacy to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

Awash in oil revenue, Iran appears increasingly confident it can outlast the Western pressure. Tehran didn't even reply to an offer from European Union foreign-policy representative Javier Solana, who negotiates with Iran on behalf of the EU and the Security Council's permanent members, to hold talks this coming week ahead of the next suspension deadline.