United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UN General Assembly
Resolution ES‑10/L.22
United Nations General Assembly resolution A ES 10 L 22 vote.png

  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Abstained
  Not present
Date 21 December 2017
Meeting no. 10th Emergency Special Session (continuation)
Code A/RES/ES‑10/L.22 (Document)
Subject Status of Jerusalem
Voting summary
128 voted for
9 voted against
35 abstained
21 absent
Result Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES‑10/L.22 is a emergency session resolution declaring the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.”.[1] It was adopted by the 37th Plenary meeting of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[2] during the tenure of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017. The draft resolution was drafted by Yemen and Turkey.[3]Though strongly contested by the United States, it passed by 128 votes to nine against with 21 absentees and 35 abstentions.

Background[edit]

On 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump said that he would recognise the status of Jerusalem as being Israel’s sovereign capital[4] in a departure from previous UNGA resolutions as well prevailing international norms where no state either recognises Jerusalem as a national capital nor has an embassy there. The move prompted protests from states and communities in many parts of the world.[5]

Following the failure of an United Nations Security Council resolution three days earlier, after an U.S. veto, to rescind the recognition by any states of Jerusalem as a national capital, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn. He sought to invoke Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, to circumvent a veto. The resolution states that the General Assembly can call an Emergency Special Session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures” if the Security Council fails to act.[6]

Campaign[edit]

On 20 December, US President Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to countries voting against the US’ side.[7] The day before the vote, he said: “Let them vote against us…We don’t care…this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”[8]Ambassador Nikki Haley warned her country would remember and “take names” of every country that voted in favour of the resolution.[9][10][11][12] The governments of Turkey and Iran denounced USA’s threats as “anti-democratic” and “blackmail“.[13][14] She had sent to a letter to dozens of member states that warned Trump had asked her to “report back on those countries who voted against us.”[15] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Trump that “he cannot buy Turkey’s democratic will with petty dollars” and “that opposition of other countries will teach the United States a good lesson”.[16][17]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel rejects this vote before it passes and called the UN “house of lies”.[18]

Canada’s, which was seeking re-negotiations of the NAFTA, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland‘s spokesman confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote and that the resolution should not have come to the General Assembly.[19]

Content[edit]

The text of the resolution includes the following key statements:[20]

The General Assembly,

  • Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City, as foreseen in the relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
  • Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;
  • Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
  • Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

It concluded in reading that “any decisions and actions, which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”[21]

Motion[edit]

The motion was proposed by Yemen and Turkey.[22]

Debate[edit]

In introducing the resolution as Chair of the Arab Group, Yemen’s Amabassador said the US decision was a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as those of all Christians and Muslims.” He emphasized that it constituted a “dangerous breach of the Charter of the United Nations and a serious threat to international peace and security, while also undermining the chances for a two‑State solution and fuelling the fires of violence and extremism.”[23]

Turkey, who was the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, also spoke as current Chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC).[23] Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Trump’s decision was an outrageous assault to all universal values. “The Palestinians have the right to their own state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the main parameter and only hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. However, the recent decision of a UN Member State to recognise Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the capital of Israel, violates international law, including all relevant UN resolutions.”[22]

The General Assembly heard from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al‑Malki, who said that the meeting was “not because of any animosity to the United States of America” but instead the sessions was “called to make the voice of the vast majority of the international community — and that of people around the world — heard on the question of Jerusalem/Al‑Quds Al‑Sharif.” He called the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move its embassy there “an aggressive and dangerous move” which could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that “has no boundaries.” He added that though the decision would have no impact on the city’s status, it would nevertheless compromise the role of the United States in the Middle East peace process.[23] He urged member states to reject “blackmail and intimidation.”[5]

US Ambassador Nikki Haley then said that her country was “singled out for attack” because of its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. She added that: “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” Haley said. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”[15] She added that: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that…this vote will make a difference in how Americans view the UN.”[22]

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon then told the assembly that the vowed that “no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem.”[4]

Venezuela’s Ambassador, speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed “grave concern about Israel’s ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including attempts to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the City of Jerusalem. [It was] slso concerned about the decision to relocate the United States embassy [and] warned that such provocative actions would further heighten tensions, with potentially far‑reaching repercussions given the extremely volatile backdrop.[23]

Other speakers included, Pakistan, Indonesia, Maldives, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iran and China.[23]

Malaysia’s Ambassador Datuk Seri Mohammed Shahrul Ikram Yaakob said that, as a member of the OIC and NAM, “Malaysia joins the international community in expressing our deep concern and rejects the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is also an infringement of the Palestinian people’s rights and their right to self determination.” He called for a peaceful two-state solution and that Malaysia is concerned the situation will only feed into the agenda of extremists.”[2]

Other speakers included, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Africa. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See, Tomasz Grysa, emphasised that Jerusalem was most sacred to the Abrahamic faiths and a symbol for millions of believers around the world who considered it their “spiritual capital.” Its significance went “beyond the question of borders, a reality that should be considered a priority in every negotiation for a political solution.” The Holy See, he said, called for a “peaceful resolution that would ensure respect for the sacred nature of Jerusalem and its universal value…reiterating that only international guarantee could preserve its unique character and status and provide assurance of dialogue and reconciliation for peace in the region.”[23]

After the motion was passed, more speeches continued with Estonia, who also spoke on behalf of other states. Australia’s Ambassador then explained her country’s government did “not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process [and] it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.”[23]

Other speakers included, Paraguay, whose Ambassador said that the country would abstain because “the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[23] This was followed by El Salvador, Argentina and Romania.[23]

Canada’s Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard called the proposal “one-sided”[23] and said: “We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote.” He, however, added that Canada wanted to emphasise Jerusalem’s special significance to the Abrahamic religions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. “Denying the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths undermines the integrity of the site for all. We also reiterate the need to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s Holy sites.[19]

Nicaragua’s explained its support of the resolution, as it “rebuffed recent unilateral attempts to modify the character and status of Jerusalem. Such unilateral actions were in blatant violation of resolution 2234 (2016) and others…unilateral actions jeopardised peace and stability in the Middle East and drew the international community further away from a solution.”[23]

Mexico’s Ambassador then explained the abstention and emphasised that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. “The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress…the international community was further than ever from agreement.”[23]

The Czech Republic then said that while it supported the European Union position, it had abstained because it “did not believe the draft resolution would contribute to the peace process.”[23]

Armenia said that is position “remained unchanged. The situation should be resolved through negotiations paving the way for lasting peace and security.”[23]

Hungary echoed Armenia’s stance and said it would not comment on the foreign relations of the United States.[23]

Latvia then spoke, before Estonia re-took the floor to say it had also spoken on behalf of Albania, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[23]

Result[edit]

Vote[24] Quantity States
Approve 128 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Reject 9 Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States.
Abstain 35 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.
Absent 21 Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Zambia.

Reactions[edit]

States

Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the result shortly after it was announced in call it “preposterous,” while he also thanked the states that supported “the truth” by not participating in “the theatre of the absurd.” He added that: “Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be…But I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theatre of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to [US] President (Donald) Trump and Ambassador [Nikki] Haley, for their stalwart defence of Israel and their stalwart defence of the truth.” Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman, reminded Israelis of the longstanding Israeli disdain for such votes. “Let us just remember that this is the same UN about which our first ambassador to the organisation, Abba Eban, once said: ‘If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions’. There is nothing new in what just happened at the UN.” He also praised the US as “the moral beacon shining out of the darkness.” Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Security Gilad Erdan said: “The historic connection between Israel and Jerusalem is stronger than any vote by the ‘United Nations’ — nations who are united only by their fear and their refusal to recognise the simple truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.”

    • However, opposition Joint List Chairman and MK Ayman Odeh called the vote a wake-up call for Israel: “In the international arena, there still exists a large and definitive majority that believes that the Palestinian people, like all other nations, deserve a place in this world and the right to self-determination. This evening’s vote by the majority of the world’s nations against Trump’s announcement, in spite of the pressure and threats, flies in the face of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s diplomatic policy and is a clear statement by the international community in support of peace and the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, whose capital is East Jerusalem,”[8]
Media

Haaretz‘s Noa Landau, wrote, in citing unnamed diplomatic sourced, that Israel was particularly disappointed with countries like India that have enhanced bilateral relations with it recently. “The main disappointment in Israel was with the countries that have enhanced bilateral relations in recent years, especially those that share a particularly conservative worldview with the Netanyahu government. For example, India – whose Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Israel in July, a tour that was memorable mainly for the pastoral photographs of him and Netanyahu embracing and wading in the waves – voted for the resolution against Israel and the United States.”[8]

Others

At a “Solidarity to Save Jerusalem” rally organised by the Barisan National government in Malaysia, one of the attendees Association of NextGen Christians of Malaysia President Joshua Hong said at the Putra Mosque: “We are here because we feel that the decision made by President Trump on announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is merely a political decision. He added that the decision also hurts Christian and Arabic churches in Palestine and not just the Muslims. “To us as Christians, Jerusalem is a city of peace and after that announcement, we feel there is no more peace.I think it is not right and unjust. We believe we should continue pursuing the sustainable peace solution for Palestine and Israel, rather than just a single nation declaring it just like that.” He claimed that about 50 members of the group turned up in a show of support for the Palestinian people..[2]

Archery at the 2016 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archery
at the Games of the XXXI Olympiad
Archery, Rio 2016.png
Venue Sambadrome Marquês de Sapucaí
Dates 6–12 August
Competitors 128
«2012 2020»

The archery events at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeirowere held over a seven-day period from 6 to 12 August. Four events took place, all were staged at the Sambadrome Marquês de Sapucaí.

Competition format[edit]

A total of 128 athletes competed across the four events: the men’s individual, women’s individual, men’s team and women’s team.[1]

All four events were recurve archery events, held under the World Archery-approved 70-meter distance and rules. The competition started with an initial ranking round involving all 64 archers of each gender. Each archer would shoot a total of 72 arrows to be seeded from 1–64 according to their score.

The ranking round was also used to seed the teams from 1 to 12, by aggregating the individual scores for the members of each team.

Each event was played in a single-elimination tournament format, except for the semi-final losers, who would play off to decide the bronze medal winner.

Individual events[edit]

In the individual events, all 64 competitors entered the competition at the first round, the round of 64. The draw was seeded according to the result of the ranking round so the first seed shot against the 64th seed in the first round.

Each match was scored using the Archery Olympic Round, consisting of the best-of-five sets, with three arrows per set. The winner of each set received two points, and if the scores in the set had tied then each archer would have received one point. If at the end of five sets the score had been tied at 5–5, a single arrow shoot-off would have held and the closest to the center would be declared the winner.

Team events[edit]

In the team events, the top four seeded teams from the ranking round will receive a bye to the quarter-final. The remaining eight teams, seeded 5th to 12th, will compete for the remaining four places in the quarter-finals.

For the first time, the team event has followed the same Archery Olympic Round set system as the individual event.

Schedule[edit]

All times are Brasília Time (UTC−3).

Day Date Start Finish Event Phase
Day 0 Friday 5 August 2016 Men’s individual Ranking round
Women’s individual Ranking round
Day 1 Saturday 6 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s team Eliminations/Medal round
Day 2 Sunday 7 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Women’s team Eliminations/Medal round
Day 3 Monday 8 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 4 Tuesday 9 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 5 Wednesday 10 August 2016 9:00 18:55 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 6 Thursday 11 August 2016 9:00 17:10 Women’s individual 1/8 Eliminations/Quarter/Semi finals/Medal round
Day 7 Friday 12 August 2016 9:00 17:10 Men’s individual 1/8 Eliminations/Quarter/Semi finals/Medal round

Qualification[edit]

Each National Olympic Committee (NOC) was permitted to enter a maximum of six competitors, three per gender. NOCs that qualified teams for a particular gender were able to send a three-member team to the team event and also have each member compete in the individual event. There were 12 team spots for each gender, thus qualifying 36 individuals through team qualification. All other NOCs might earn a maximum of one quota place per gender for the individual events.[2]

Six places were reserved for Brazil as the host nation, and a further six were decided by the Tripartite Commission. The remaining 116 places were then allocated through a qualification process, in which archers earned quota places for their respective NOCs, though not necessarily for themselves.

To be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games after the NOC has obtained a quota place, all archers must have achieved the following minimum qualification score (MQS):

  • Men: 70m round of 630
  • Women: 70m round of 600

The MQS must have been achieved between 26 July 2015 (starting at the 2015 World Archery Championships) and 11 July 2016 at a registered World Archery event.

Participating nations[edit]

Archers from 56 nations participated at the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Competitors[edit]

Male archers

  • Entry list at 1 August 2016[1]
NOC Name Age Hometown World ranking Team ranking
 Australia Alec Potts February 9, 1996 (age 22) AustraliaSouth Australia Clayton Bay 108 19
 Australia Ryan Tyack June 2, 1991 (age 26) AustraliaQueensland Brisbane 59 19
 Australia Taylor Worth January 8, 1991 (age 27) AustraliaWestern Australia Yangebup 15 19
 Belarus Anton Prilepov February 5, 1984 (age 34) Belarus Mogilev 18
 Belgium Robin Ramaekers October 26, 1994 (age 23) Belgium Tongeren 97
 Brazil Marcus Dalmeida January 30, 1998 (age 20) BrazilRio de Janeiro (state) Rio de Janeiro 17 17
 Brazil Bernardo Oliveira June 8, 1993 (age 24) BrazilFederal District (Brazil) Brasilia 99 17
 Brazil Daniel Rezende Xavier August 31, 1982 (age 35) BrazilMinas Gerais Belo Horizonte 114 17
 Canada Crispin Duenas January 5, 1986 (age 32) CanadaOntario Toronto 20
 Chile Ricardo Soto October 20, 1999 (age 18) Chile Arica 113
 China Gu Xuesong June 21, 1993 (age 24) China Shanghai 39 3
 China Wang Dapeng December 3, 1996 (age 21) China Huangdao 118 3
 China Xing Yu March 12, 1991 (age 26) China Beijing 12 3
 Chinese Taipei Kao Hao-wen March 17, 1995 (age 22) Chinese Taipei Hualien 31 6
 Chinese Taipei Wei Chun-heng July 6, 1994 (age 23) Chinese Taipei Taoyuan 10 6
 Chinese Taipei Yu Guan-lin November 29, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Nantou 55 6
 Colombia Andres Pila May 11, 1991 (age 26) Colombia Montelíbano 82
 Cuba Adrian Andres Puentes Perez July 3, 1988 (age 29) Cuba Sancti Spíritus 123
 Egypt Ahmed El-Nemr November 21, 1978 (age 39) Egypt Cairo 156
 Fiji Robert Elder April 25, 1981 (age 36) Fiji Suva 199
 Finland Samuli Piippo January 1, 1980 (age 38) Finland Oulu 75
 France Lucas Daniel January 1, 1995 (age 23) France Riom 25 15
 France Pierre Plihon October 29, 1989 (age 28) France Nice 42 15
 France Jean-Charles Valladont March 20, 1989 (age 28) France Champigny-sur-Marne 4 15
 Germany Florian Floto April 12, 1988 (age 29) GermanyLower SaxonyBraunschweig 77
 Great Britain Patrick Huston January 5, 1996 (age 22) United KingdomNorthern Ireland Belfast 38
 India Atanu Das April 5, 1992 (age 25) India Kolkata 22
 Indonesia Riau Ega Agatha November 25, 1991 (age 26) Indonesia Blitar 29 14
 Indonesia Hendra Purnama November 12, 1997 (age 20) Indonesia Bantul 98 14
 Indonesia Muhammad Wijaya November 22, 1996 (age 21) Indonesia Jambi 209 14
 Italy Marco Galiazzo May 9, 1983 (age 34) Italy Padua 381 5
 Italy Mauro Nespoli November 22, 1987 (age 30) Italy Vigna di Valle 11 5
 Italy David Pasqualucci June 27, 1996 (age 21) Italy Genzano di Roma 28 5
 France Rene Philippe Kouassi December 14, 1979 (age 38) France Angers 279
 Japan Takaharu Furukawa August 9, 1984 (age 33) Japan Aomori 19
 Kazakhstan Sultan Duzelbayev March 12, 1994 (age 23) Kazakhstan Almaty 125
 Libya Ali Elghari January 31, 1997 (age 21) Libya Tripoli 440
 Malawi Areneo David June 6, 1995 (age 22) Malawi Gumulira 440
 Malaysia Haziq Kamaruddin July 21, 1993 (age 24) Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 100 18
 Malaysia Khairul Anuar Mohamad September 22, 1991 (age 26) Malaysia Kemaman 41 18
 Malaysia Muhammad Akmal Nor Hasrin July 15, 1995 (age 22) Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 235 18
 Mexico Ernesto Boardman February 23, 1993 (age 24) MexicoCoahuila Arteaga 16
 Mongolia Gantugs Jantsan April 12, 1972 (age 45) Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 114
 Nepal Jitbahadur Muktan August 31, 1979 (age 38) Nepal Kathmandu 338
 Netherlands Mitch Dielemans January 6, 1993 (age 25) Netherlands Geldrop 51 7
 Netherlands Sjef van den Berg April 14, 1995 (age 22) Netherlands Oss 5 7
 Netherlands Rick van der Ven April 14, 1991 (age 26) Netherlands Arnhem 7 7
 Norway Baard Nesteng May 14, 1979 (age 38) Norway Fredrikstad 52
 Slovakia Boris Balaz November 20, 1997 (age 20) Slovakia Liptovský Mikuláš 202
 South Korea Kim Woo-jin June 20, 1992 (age 25) South Korea Chungju 1 1
 South Korea Ku Bon-chan January 31, 1993 (age 25) South Korea Andong 2 1
 South Korea Lee Seung-yun April 18, 1995 (age 22) South Korea Seoul 8 1
 Spain Miguel Alvarino Garcia May 31, 1994 (age 23) SpainGalicia (Spain) A Coruña 9 9
 Spain Antonio Fernandez June 12, 1991 (age 26) SpainExtremadura Cáceres 23 9
 Spain Juan Rodriguez Liebana June 19, 1992 (age 25) SpainCommunity of Madrid Madrid 30 9
 Thailand Witthaya Thamwong September 19, 1987 (age 30) Thailand Lampang 101
 Tonga Hans Arne Jensen February 25, 1998 (age 19) Tonga Nuku’alofa 869
 Turkey Mete Gazoz June 8, 1999 (age 18) Turkey Istanbul 14
 Ukraine Viktor Ruban May 24, 1981 (age 36) Ukraine Kharkiv 36
 United States Brady Ellison October 27, 1988 (age 29) United StatesArizona Globe 6 2
 United States Zach Garrett April 8, 1995 (age 22) United StatesMissouri Wellington 3 2
 United States Jake Kaminski August 11, 1988 (age 29) United StatesNew York (state) Elma 26 2
 Venezuela Elias Malave October 26, 1989 (age 28) Venezuela Maturín 35
 Great Britain Gavin Ben Sutherland June 26, 1979 (age 38) United Kingdom Worthing 177

Female archers[edit]

  • Entry list at 1 August 2016[2]
NOC Name Age Hometown World ranking Team ranking
 Australia Alice Ingley January 13, 1993 (age 25) AustraliaWestern Australia Perth 353
 Austria Laurence Baldauff November 19, 1974 (age 43) Austria Vienna 93
 Azerbaijan Olga Senyuk January 23, 1991 (age 27) Azerbaijan Baku 83
 Bangladesh Shamoli Ray April 5, 1994 (age 23) Bangladesh Dhaka 175
 Bhutan Karma Karma June 6, 1990 (age 27) Bhutan Trashiyangtse 229
 Brazil Marina Canetta April 1, 1989 (age 28) BrazilSão Paulo (state) São Paulo 105 20
 Brazil Ane Marcelle dos Santos January 12, 1994 (age 24) BrazilRio de Janeiro (state) Maricá 64 20
 Brazil Sarah Nikitin December 27, 1988 (age 29) BrazilSão Paulo (state) São Paulo 126 20
 Canada Georcy Thiffeault Picard February 8, 1991 (age 27) CanadaQuebec Montreal 46
 China Cao Hui September 7, 1991 (age 26) China Liaoning 34 6
 China Qi Yuhong August 25, 1989 (age 28) China Shanghai 21 6
 China Wu Jiaxin February 28, 1997 (age 20) China Shanghai 20 6
 Chinese Taipei Le Chien-ying April 17, 1990 (age 27) Chinese Taipei Taipei 7 4
 Chinese Taipei Lin Shih-chia May 20, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Hsinchu 10 4
 Chinese Taipei Tan Ya-ting November 7, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Hsinchu 2 4
 Colombia Carolina Aguirre January 29, 1996 (age 22) Colombia Antioquia 79 13
 Colombia Ana Maria Rendon March 10, 1986 (age 31) Colombia Medellín 27 13
 Colombia Natalia Sanchez March 20, 1983 (age 34) Colombia Medellín 36 13
 Dominican Republic Yessica Camilo Gonzalez April 23, 1993 (age 24) Dominican Republic Santo Domingo 157
 Egypt Reem Mansour December 20, 1993 (age 24) Egypt Cairo 179
 Estonia Laura Nurmsalu June 1, 1994 (age 23) Estonia Viljandi 75
 Finland Taru Kuoppa November 14, 1983 (age 34) Finland Lahti 96
 Georgia Kristine Esebua March 19, 1985 (age 32) Georgia (country) Khobi 8 7
 Georgia Yuliya Lobzhenidze August 23, 1977 (age 40) Georgia (country) Tbilisi 85 7
 Georgia Khatuna Narimanidze February 2, 1974 (age 44) Georgia (country) Batumi 37 7
 Germany Lisa Unruh April 12, 1988 (age 29) GermanyBerlin Berlin 16
 Great Britain Naomi Folkard September 18, 1983 (age 34) United KingdomEngland Leamington Spa 67
 Greece Evangelia Psarra June 17, 1974 (age 43) Greece Thessaloniki 95
 India Deepika Kumari June 13, 1994 (age 23) India Jamshedpur 12 4
 India Bombayla Devi Laishram February 22, 1985 (age 32) India Imphal 69 4
 India Laxmirani Majhi January 26, 1989 (age 29) India Chittaranjan 15 4
 Indonesia Ika Rochmawati July 2, 1989 (age 28) Indonesia Bojonegoro 26
 Iran Zahra Nemati April 30, 1985 (age 32) Iran Tehran 47
 Italy Lucilla Boari March 24, 1997 (age 20) Italy Mantua 24 9
 Italy Claudia Mandia October 21, 1992 (age 25) Italy Salerno 74 9
 Italy Guendalina Sartori August 8, 1988 (age 29) Italy Monselice 17 9
 Japan Yuki Hayashi October 2, 1984 (age 33) Japan Kawanishi 33 10
 Japan Kaori Kawanaka August 3, 1991 (age 26) Japan Kotoura 13 10
 Japan Saori Nagamine July 5, 1993 (age 24) Japan Nagasaki 61 10
 Kazakhstan Luiza Saidiyeva March 17, 1994 (age 23) Kazakhstan Shymkent 107
 Kenya Shehzana Anwar August 21, 1989 (age 28) Kenya Nairobi 195
 Mexico Gabriela Bayardo February 18, 1994 (age 23) MexicoBaja California Tijuana 62 12
 Mexico Aida Roman May 21, 1988 (age 29) MexicoMexico City Mexico City 14 12
 Mexico Alejandra Valencia October 17, 1994 (age 23) MexicoSonora Hermosillo 18 12
 Moldova Alexandra Mirca October 11, 1993 (age 24) Moldova Chișinău 60
 Myanmar San Yu Htwe October 14, 1986 (age 31) Myanmar Mindat 191
 North Korea Kang Un-ju February 1, 1995 (age 23) North Korea Pyongyang 72
 Poland Karina Lipiarska-Palka February 16, 1987 (age 30) Poland Gmina Zabierzów 41
 Russia Tuiana Dashidorzhieva April 14, 1996 (age 21) RussiaZabaykalsky Krai Chita 11 2
 Russia Ksenia Perova February 8, 1989 (age 29) RussiaSverdlovsk Oblast Lesnoy 5 2
 Russia Inna Stepanova April 17, 1990 (age 27) RussiaBuryatia Ulan-Ude 48 2
 Slovakia Alexandra Longova February 7, 1994 (age 24) Slovakia Viničné 57
 South Korea Hye Jin Chang May 13, 1987 (age 30) South Korea Daegu 6 1
 South Korea Choi Mi-sun July 1, 1996 (age 21) South Korea Gwangju 1 1
 South Korea Ki Bo-bae February 20, 1988 (age 29) South Korea Gwangju 3 1
 Spain Adriana Martin April 17, 1997 (age 20) SpainCommunity of Madrid Madrid 51
 Sweden Christine Bjerendal February 3, 1987 (age 31) Sweden Lindome 77
 Tonga Karoline Lusitania Tatafu February 20, 1998 (age 19) Tonga Nuku’alofa 309
 Turkey Yasemin Anagoz October 14, 1998 (age 19) Turkey Izmir 31
 Ukraine Veronika Marchenko April 3, 1993 (age 24) Ukraine Lviv 9 8
 Ukraine Anastasia Pavlova February 9, 1995 (age 23) Ukraine Nova Kakhovka 44 8
 Ukraine Lidiia Sichenikova February 3, 1993 (age 25) Ukraine Chernivtsi 45 8
 United States Mackenzie Brown March 14, 1995 (age 22) United StatesTexas Flint 4
 Venezuela Leidys Brito July 5, 1984 (age 33) Venezuela Maturín 55

External links

Medal summary[edit]

Medal table[edit]

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 South Korea 4 0 1 5
2 United States 0 1 1 2
3 Germany 0 1 0 1
France 0 1 0 1
Russia 0 1 0 1
6 Australia 0 0 1 1
Chinese Taipei 0 0 1 1
Total 4 4 4 12

Medalists[edit]

Event Gold Silver Bronze
Men’s individual
details
Ku Bon-chan
 South Korea
Jean-Charles Valladont
 France
Brady Ellison
 United States
Men’s team
details
 South Korea (KOR)
Ku Bon-chan
Lee Seung-yun
Kim Woo-jin
 United States (USA)
Brady Ellison
Zach Garrett
Jake Kaminski
 Australia (AUS)
Alec Potts
Ryan Tyack
Taylor Worth
Women’s individual
details
Chang Hye-jin
 South Korea
Lisa Unruh
 Germany
Ki Bo-bae
 South Korea
Women’s team
details
 South Korea (KOR)
Chang Hye-jin
Choi Mi-sun
Ki Bo-bae
 Russia (RUS)
Tuyana Dashidorzhieva
Ksenia Perova
Inna Stepanova
 Chinese Taipei (TPE)
Le Chien-ying
Lin Shih-chia
Tan Ya-ting

Unit 731

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unit 731
Unit 731 - Complex.jpg

The Unit 731 complex
Location Pingfang, China
Coordinates 45.6°N 126.63°ECoordinates: 45.6°N 126.63°E
Date 1935–1945
Attack type
Human experimentation
Biological warfare
Chemical warfare
Weapons Biological weapons
Chemical weapons
Explosives
Deaths Over 3,000 from inside experiments and tens of thousands from field experiments
Perpetrators General Shirō Ishii
Lt. General Masaji Kitano
Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department

Unit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China).

It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関東軍防疫給水部本部 Kantōgun Bōeki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name “Unit 731” in 1941.

Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]

Unit 731 veterans of Japan attest that most of the victims they experimented on were Chinese, Koreans and Mongolians.[6] Almost 70% of the victims who died in the Pingfang camp were Chinese, including both civilian and military.[7] Close to 30% of the victims were Russian.[8] Some others were South East Asians and Pacific Islanders, at the time colonies of the Empire of Japan, and a small number of Allied prisoners of war.[9] The unit received generous support from the Japanese government up to the end of the war in 1945. The Nazis and Japanese conspired in their experimental efforts.[10]

Instead of being tried for war crimes, the researchers involved in Unit 731 were given immunity by the U.S. in exchange for their data on human experimentation.[11] Some were arrested by Soviet forces and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949. Americans did not try the researchers so that the information and experience gained in bio-weapons could be co-opted into the U.S. biological warfare program.[12] On 6 May 1947, Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, wrote to Washington that “additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as ‘War Crimes’ evidence.”[11] Victim accounts were then largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda.[13]

Building on the site of the Harbin bioweapon facility of Unit 731

Formation[edit]

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731

In 1932, General Shirō Ishii (石井四郎 Ishii Shirō), chief medical officer of the Japanese Army and protégé of Army Minister Sadao Araki was placed in command of the Army Epidemic Prevention Research Laboratory. Ishii organized a secret research group, the “Tōgō Unit”, for various chemical and biological experimentation in Manchuria. Ishii had proposed the creation of a Japanese biological and chemical research unit in 1930, after a two-year study trip abroad, on the grounds that Western powers were developing their own programs. One of Ishii’s main supporters inside the army was Colonel Chikahiko Koizumi, who later became Japan’s Health Minister from 1941 to 1945. Koizumi had joined a secret poison gas research committee in 1915, during World War I, when he and other Japanese army officers were impressed by the successful German use of chlorine gas at the second battle of Ypres, where the Allies suffered 15,000 casualties as a result of the chemical attack.[14]

Unit Tōgō was implemented in the Zhongma Fortress, a prison/experimentation camp in Beiyinhe, a village 100 km (62 mi) south of Harbin on theSouth Manchurian Railway. A jailbreak in autumn 1934 and later explosion (believed to be an attack) in 1935 led Ishii to shut down Zhongma Fortress. He received the authorization to move to Pingfang, approximately 24 km (15 mi) south of Harbin, to set up a new and much larger facility.[15]

In 1936, Hirohito authorized, by imperial decree, the expansion of this unit and its integration into the Kwantung Army as the Epidemic Prevention Department.[16] It was divided at the same time into the “Ishii Unit” and “Wakamatsu Unit” with a base in Hsinking. From August 1940, all these units were known collectively as the “Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関東軍防疫給水部本部)”[17]or “Unit 731” (満州第731部隊) for short.

Activities[edit]

A special project code-named Maruta used human beings for experiments. Test subjects were gathered from the surrounding population and were sometimes referred to euphemistically as “logs” (丸太 maruta?), used in such contexts as “How many logs fell?”. This term originated as a joke on the part of the staff because the official cover story for the facility given to the local authorities was that it was a lumber mill. However, in an account by a man who worked as a “junior uniformed civilian employee” of the Japanese Army in Unit 731, the project was internally called “Holzklotz”, which is the German word for maruta.[18]

The ruins of a boiler building

The test subjects were selected to give a wide cross-section of the population and included common criminals, captured bandits and anti-Japanese partisans, political prisoners, and also people rounded up by the Kempeitai for alleged “suspicious activities”. They included infants, the elderly, and pregnant women.

Vivisection[edit]

Prisoners, including one known POW,[19] were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.[20] Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Researchers performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.[21] The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants, including pregnant women and their infants impregnated by Japanese surgeons.[22]

Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss. Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body. Some prisoners’ limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen, then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.

Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines. Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.[20]

Japanese army surgeon Ken Yuasa suggests that the practice of vivisection on human subjects (mostly Chinese Communists) was widespread even outside Unit 731,[6] estimating that at least 1,000 people were involved in the practice in mainland China.[23]

Germ warfare attacks[edit]

Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects. To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied. Prisoners were also repeatedly subject to rape by guards.[24]

Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resultingcholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around and possibly more than 400,000 Chinese civilians.[25]Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.[26]

Unit 731 and its affiliated units (Unit 1644 and Unit 100 among others) were involved in research, development, and experimental deployment of epidemic-creating biowarfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both civilian and military) throughout World War II. Plague-infested fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities, coastalNingbo in 1940, and Changde, Hunan Province, in 1941. This military aerial spraying killed thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics.[27]

Frostbite testing[edit]

Some Japanese justify their experiments with “a discovery of a new treatment methodology for frostbite,” made possible by the human experimentation conducted in Unit 731. Japan intended to prepare to battle the looming threat of the Soviet Union, which “meant that the Japanese military had to be ready to treat large numbers of its soldiers for frostbite”. So physiologist Yoshimura Hisato conducted experiments by taking captives outside, dipping various appendages into water, and allowing the limb to freeze. Once frozen, which testimony from a Japanese officer said “was determined after the ‘frozen arms, when struck with a short stick, emitted a sound resembling that which a board gives when it is struck'”,[28] ice was chipped away and the area doused in water. The effects of different water temperatures were tested by bludgeoning the victim to determine if any areas were still frozen. Variations of these tests in more gruesome forms were performed. However, the best way to treat frostbite, which is used today, was established to be by immersing the affected area in water with a temperature between 100–122 °F (38–50 °C). This method differed substantially from previous treatment of rubbing afflicted areas. The aim and breadth of this research was in response to the historical flaws of other colonial powers’ attempts to invade Russia.[29]

Rape, syphilis and forced pregnancy[edit]

Women were used in specific experiments in Unit 731. In order to respond to the growing threat of syphilis among Japanese troops, “among whom the prevalence of syphilis was high due to the systematic rape of women and the widespread use of sex slaves,” women at Unit 731 were either raped or infected with a serum containing virulent strains of syphilis.[30] In documentation of these experiments, doctors remarked that syphilitic infection of the women was the result of self-perpetuated prostitution, rather than the serum that had been administered to them. External reactions—change in skin and organ appearance—as well as internal changes were studied. In the case of the body’s internal reaction to infection, patients were vivisected or killed with autopsies being conducted immediately afterward. Forced pregnancy was also used to determine the effects of vertical transmission of the disease.

Weapons testing[edit]

Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions. Flame throwers were tested on humans. Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.[31][32]

Other experiments[edit]

In other tests, subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into high-pressure chambers until death; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses ofx-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline solution; and burned or buried alive.[33]

Biological warfare[edit]

An unidentified victim of Unit 731 human experimentation.

Japanese researchers performed tests on prisoners with Bubonic plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism, and other diseases.[34] This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague.[35] Some of these bombs were designed with ceramic (porcelain) shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938.

These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens. During biological bomb experiments, researchers dressed in protective suits would examine the dying victims. Infected food supplies and clothing were dropped by airplane into areas of China not occupied by Japanese forces. In addition, poisoned food and candies were given out to unsuspecting victims, and the results examined.

In 2002, Changde, China, site of the flea spraying attack, held an “International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare” which estimated that at least 580,000 people died as a result of the attack.[36] The historian Sheldon Harris claims that 200,000 died.[37] In addition to Chinese casualties, 1,700 Japanese in Chekiang were killed by their own biological weapons while attempting to unleash the biological agent, which indicates serious issues with distribution.[2]

During the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against San Diego, California. The plan was scheduled to launch on September 22, 1945, but Japan surrendered five weeks earlier.[38][39][40][41]

Known unit members[edit]

Divisions[edit]

Unit 731 was divided into eight divisions:

  • Division 1: Research on bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax, typhoid and tuberculosis using live human subjects. For this purpose, a prison was constructed to contain around three to four hundred people.
  • Division 2: Research for biological weapons used in the field, in particular the production of devices to spread germs and parasites.
  • Division 3: Production of shells containing biological agents. Stationed in Harbin.
  • Division 4: Production of other miscellaneous agents.
  • Division 5: Training of personnel.
  • Divisions 6–8: Equipment, medical and administrative units.

Facilities[edit]

One of the buildings is open to visitors

The Unit 731 complex covered six square kilometers and consisted of more than 150 buildings. The design of the facilities made them hard to destroy by bombing. The complex contained various factories. It had around 4,500 containers to be used to raisefleas, six cauldrons to produce various chemicals, and around 1,800 containers to produce biological agents. Approximately 30 kg of bubonic plague bacteria could be produced in several days.

Some of Unit 731’s satellite facilities are in use by various Chinese industrial concerns. A portion has been preserved and is open to visitors as a War Crimes Museum.

Tokyo[edit]

A medical school and research facility belonging to Unit 731 operated in the Shinjuku District of Tokyo during World War II. In 2006, Toyo Ishii—a nurse who worked at the school during the war—revealed that she had helped bury bodies and pieces of bodies on the school’s grounds shortly after Japan’s surrender in 1945. In response, in February 2011 the Ministry of Health began to excavate the site.[42]

China requested DNA samples from any human remains discovered at the site. The Japanese government—which has never officially acknowledged the atrocities committed by Unit 731—rejected the request.[43]

Guangzhou[edit]

The related Unit 8604 was operated by the Japanese Southern China Area Army and stationed at Guangzhou (Canton). This installation conducted human experimentation in food and water deprivation as well as water-borne typhus. According to postwar testimony, this facility served as the main rat breeding farm for the medical units to provide them with bubonic plague vectors for experiments.[44]

Related units[edit]

Unit 731 was part of the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department which dealt with contagious disease and water supply generally.

Surrender and immunity[edit]

Information sign at the site today.

Operations and experiments continued until the end of the war. Ishii had wanted to use biological weapons in the Pacific War since May 1944, but his attempts were repeatedly snubbed.

Destruction of evidence[edit]

With the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo and Mengjiang in August 1945, the unit had to abandon their work in haste. The members and their families fled to Japan.

Ishii ordered every member of the group “to take the secret to the grave”, threatening to find them if they failed, and prohibiting any of them from going into public work back in Japan. Potassium cyanide vials were issued for use in the event that the remaining personnel were captured.

Skeleton crews of Ishii’s Japanese troops blew up the compound in the final days of the war to destroy evidence of their activities, but most were so well constructed that they survived somewhat intact.

American grant of immunity[edit]

Among the individuals in Japan after their 1945 surrender was Lieutenant Colonel Murray Sanders, who arrived in Yokohama via the American ship Sturgess in September 1945. Sanders was a highly regarded microbiologist and a member of America’s military center for biological weapons. Sanders’ duty was to investigate Japanese biological warfare activity. At the time of his arrival in Japan he had no knowledge of what Unit 731 was.[45] Until Sanders finally threatened the Japanese with bringing communism into the picture, little information about biological warfare was being shared with the Americans. The Japanese wanted to avoid the Soviet legal system so the next morning after the threat Sanders received a manuscript describing Japan’s involvement in biological warfare.[46] Sanders took this information to General Douglas MacArthur, who was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers responsible for rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupations. MacArthur struck a deal with Japanese informants[47]—he secretly grantedimmunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare and data from human experimentation.[11] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[48] The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[49]

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with “poisonous serums” on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counsel argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was probably unaware of Unit 731’s activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

Separate Soviet trials[edit]

Although publicly silent on the issue at the Tokyo Trials, the Soviet Union pursued the case and prosecuted twelve top military leaders and scientists from Unit 731 and its affiliated biological-war prisons Unit 1644 in Nanjing, and Unit 100 in Changchun, in the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. Included among those prosecuted for war crimes, including germ warfare, was General Otozō Yamada, the commander-in-chief of the million-man Kwantung Army occupying Manchuria.

The trial of those captured Japanese perpetrators was held in Khabarovsk in December 1949. A lengthy partial transcript of the trial proceedings was published in different languages the following year by a Moscow foreign languages press, including an English language edition.[50] The lead prosecuting attorney at the Khabarovsk trial was Lev Smirnov, who had been one of the top Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. The Japanese doctors and army commanders who had perpetrated the Unit 731 experiments received sentences from the Khabarovsk court ranging from two to 25 years in a Siberian labor camp. The U.S. refused to acknowledge the trials, branding them communist propaganda.[51]

After World War II, the Soviet Union built a biological weapons facility in Sverdlovsk using documentation captured from Unit 731 in Manchuria.[52]

After World War II[edit]

Official silence under Occupation[edit]

As above, under the American occupation the members of Unit 731 and other experimental units were allowed to go free. One graduate of Unit 1644, Masami Kitaoka, continued to do experiments on unwilling Japanese subjects from 1947 to 1956 while working for Japan’s National Institute of Health Sciences. He infected prisoners with rickettsia and mental health patients with typhus.[53]

Post-Occupation Japanese media coverage and debate[edit]

Japanese discussions of Unit 731’s activity began in the 1950s, after the end of the American occupation of Japan. In 1952, human experiments carried out in Nagoya City Pediatric Hospital, which resulted in one death, were publicly tied to former members of Unit 731.[54] Later in that decade, journalists suspected that the murders attributed by the government to Sadamichi Hirasawa were actually carried out by members of Unit 731. In 1958, Japanese author Shusaku Endo published the book The Sea and Poison about human experimentation, which is thought to have been based on a real incident.

The author Morimura Seiichi published The Devil’s Gluttony (悪魔の飽食) in 1981, followed by The Devil’s Gluttony: A Sequel in 1983. These books purported to reveal the “true” operations of Unit 731, but actually confused them with that of Unit 100, and falsely used unrelated photos attributing them to Unit 731, which raised questions about its accuracy.[55][56] Also in 1981 appeared the first direct testimony of human vivisection in China, by Ken Yuasa. Since then many more in-depth testimonies have appeared in Japanese. The 2001 documentary Japanese Devils was composed largely of interviews with 14 members of Unit 731 who had been taken as prisoners by China and later released.[57]

Official government response in Japan[edit]

Since the end of the Allied occupation, the Japanese government has repeatedly apologized for its pre-war behavior in general, but specific apologies and indemnities are determined on the basis of bilateral determination that crimes occurred, which requires a high standard of evidence. Unit 731 presents a special problem, since unlike Nazi human experimentation which the U.S. publicly condemned, the activities of Unit 731 are known to the general public only from the testimonies of willing former unit members, and testimony cannot be employed to determine indemnity in this way. The American retrieval of the highly documented experimentations of Unit 731 is covert and not something either the U.S. or Japan are willing to admit has happened in the first place. The Nazis and Japanese collaborated in their experiments.[58]

Japanese history textbooks usually contain references to Unit 731, but do not go into detail about allegations, in accordance with this principle.[59][60] Saburo Ienaga‘s New History of Japan included a detailed description, based on officers’ testimony. The Ministry for Education attempted to remove this passage from his textbook before it was taught in public schools, on the basis that the testimony was insufficient. The Supreme Court of Japan ruled in 1997 that the testimony was indeed sufficient and that requiring it to be removed was an illegal violation of freedom of speech.[61]

In 1997, the international lawyer Kōnen Tsuchiya filed a class action suit against the Japanese government, demanding reparations for the actions of Unit 731, using evidence filed by Professor Makoto Ueda of Rikkyo University. All Japanese court levels found that the suit was baseless. No findings of fact were made about the existence of human experimentation, but the decision of the court was that reparations are determined by international treaties and not by national court cases.

In October 2003, a member of the House of Representatives of Japan filed an inquiry. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi responded that the Japanese government did not then possess any records related to Unit 731, but the government recognized the gravity of the matter and would publicize any records that were located in the future.[62]

Abroad[edit]

Books[edit]

  • Forest sea (pol. Leśne morze) (1960) a novel by a Polish writer and educator Igor Newerly. The first book outside Asia which refers to atrocities committed in the Unit.

Films[edit]

There have been several films about the atrocities of Unit 731.

Music[edit]

  • “The Breeding House” (1994), Bruce Dickinson. Segment of the CD-single Tears of the Dragon, describing the atrocities committed by Unit 731 and the immunity granted by the Americans to the physicians of the Unit.
  • “Unit 731” (2009), American thrash metal band Slayer. Song on the album World Painted Blood, describing the events and atrocities that occurred at Unit 731.

Television[edit]

  • The X-Files episode “731” (1995). Former members of Unit 731 secretly continue their experiments on humans under control of a covert U.S. government agency.
  • ReGenesis episode “Let it burn” (2007). Outbreaks of anthrax and glanders are traced to World War II Japan.
  • Warehouse 13” episode “The 40th Floor” (2011). General Shoro Ishii’s Medal from Unit 731 simulated drowning when applied to a victim’s skin.

See also[edit]

Pacific War (World War II)[edit]

Other human experimentation[edit]

Oman and Afghanistan have grabbed the last two places in next year’s ICC World Twenty20 tournament in India.

 

 

Afghanistan overcame Papua New Guinea by six wickets with 10 balls to spare at Malahide, Dublin, to qualify for the event for the fourth successive time.

Oman then beat Namibia by five wickets at the same venue to qualify for their first major global cricket tournament.

The victory also means Oman have been granted Twenty20 international status by the International Cricket Council.

Oman are coached by former Sri Lanka captain Duleep Mendis, and have also recently

 

These are the six team that will be playing along side the full fledge nation in the 2016 world cup

 

Afghanistan,

Ireland,

Netherlands,

UAE,

Scotland,

Oman,

 

ICC Men World Twenty20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the equivalent women’s tournament, see ICC Women’s World Twenty20. For the ICC Twenty20 ranking scheme, see ICC T20I Championship.
ICC World Twenty20
2014 ICC World Twenty20 logo.svg

The logo of 2014 ICC World Twenty20
Administrator International Cricket Council
Format Twenty20 International
First tournament 2007
Tournament format Round robin, followed by Super 8, and conclusion with the Semi Final and Final
Number of teams 16
Current champion  Sri Lanka (1st title)
Most successful
Most runs Sri Lanka Mahela Jayawardene(1016)[1]
Most wickets Sri Lanka Lasith Malinga (38)[2]
2016 ICC World Twenty20

Summary of all teams in all tournaments[edit]

Source: Cricinfo[24]
Team Appearances Best result Statistics
Total First Latest Played Won Lost Tie NR Win%
 Sri Lanka 5 2007 2014 Champions (2014) 31 21 9 1(1) 0 69.35
 India 5 2007 2014 Champions (2007) 28 17 9 1(1) 1 64.81
 Pakistan 5 2007 2014 Champions (2009) 30 18 11 1(0) 0 61.66
 England 5 2007 2014 Champions (2010) 26 11 14 0 1 44.00
 West Indies 5 2007 2014 Champions (2012) 25 12 11 1(1) 1 52.08
 Australia 5 2007 2014 Runner-up (2010) 25 14 11 0 0 56.00
 South Africa 5 2007 2014 Third place (2009) 26 16 10 0 0 61.53
 New Zealand 5 2007 2014 Fourth place (2007) 25 11 12 2(0) 0 48.00
 Bangladesh 5 2007 2014 Round 2 (2007) 18 3 15 0 0 16.66
 Ireland 4 2009 2014 Round 2 (2009) 12 3 7 0 2 30.00
 Netherlands 2 2009 2014 Round 2 (2014) 9 4 5 0 0 44.44
 Kenya 1 2007 2007 Round 1 (2007) 2 0 2 0 0 0.00
 Scotland 2 2007 2009 Round 1 (2007) 4 0 3 0 1 0.00
 Zimbabwe 4 2007 2014 Round 1 (2007) 9 3 6 0 0 33.33
 Afghanistan 3 2010 2014 Round 1 (2012) 7 1 6 0 0 14.28
 Hong Kong 1 2014 2014 Round 1 (2014) 3 1 2 0 0 33.33
   Nepal 1 2014 2014 Round 1 (2014) 3 2 1 0 0 66.66
 United Arab Emirates 1 2014 2014 Round 1 (2014) 3 0 3 0 0 0.00

Team results by tournament[edit]

The ICC does not adjudicate rankings but only rounds a team achieves e.g. Semis, round one etc. The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams in the ICC World Twenty20.

Legend
  • 1st — Champions
  • 2nd — Runners-up
  • 3rd — Third place
  • 4th — Fourth place
  • R2 — Round 2 (Super 8s, Super 10s)
  • R1 — Round 1
  • q — Qualified for upcoming tournament
  •  ••  — Qualified but withdrew
  •  •  — Did not qualify
  •  ×  — Did not enter / Withdrew / Banned
  •    — Hosts

The team ranking in each tournament is according to ICC.

For each tournament, the number of teams in each finals tournament (in brackets) are shown.

The number in bracket indicates number of wins in tied matches by Super Over, Bowl out or any other c, however these are considered as half a win regardless of the result. The win percentage excludes no results and counts ties (irrespective of a tiebreaker) as half a win.

The inaugural event, the 2007 ICC World Twenty20, was staged in South Africa. Pakistan were originally selected to host it. It ran from 11–24 September 2007. The tournament was won by India, who became the first World T20 Champions after defeating Pakistan by 5 runs in the final at theWanderers Stadium in Johannesburg. The second event, the 2009 ICC World Twenty20 took place in England from 5–21 June 2009. This tournament was won by the previous runners-up Pakistan who defeated Sri Lanka by 8 wickets in the final at Lord’s, London.[3][4] The third tournament, the 2010 ICC World Twenty20 was held from 30 April–16 May 2010 and hosted by the West Indies. The winners were England who defeated Australia by 7 wickets in the final atKensington Oval, Barbados. This was the first ever ICC tournament won byEngland. The fourth tournament, the 2012 ICC World Twenty20, was held from 18 September to 7 October 2012 and was hosted by Sri Lanka. The winners were West Indies who defeated Sri Lanka by 36 runs, their first appearance in a World cricket final since 1983 and their first victory since 1979.[5] The fifth tournament, the 2014 ICC World Twenty20, was held from 16 March to 6 April. The winners of the tournament were Sri Lanka, who made it to the finals for the third time, by beating India by 6 wickets.The ICC World Twenty20 (also referred to as the ICC World T20 or theWorld Twenty20) is the international championship of Twenty20 cricket. Organised by cricket‘s governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC), the tournament consists of 12 teams, comprising all ten ICC full members and two other ICC members chosen through the ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. The event is generally held every two years, and all matches are accordedTwenty20 International status. The 2014 event was a host to 16 nations. See the full list below.

History[edit]

Background[edit]

When the Benson & Hedges Cup ended in 2002, the ECB needed another one day competition to fill its place. Cricketing authorities were looking to boost the game’s popularity with the younger generation in response to dwindling crowds and reduced sponsorship. It was intended to deliver fast paced, exciting cricket accessible to thousands of fans who were put off by the longer versions of the game. Stuart Robertson, the marketing manager of the ECB, proposed a 20 over per innings game to county chairmen in 2001 and they voted 11–7 in favour of adopting the new format.[6]

Regional tournaments

ICC World T20 2007 BAN vs RSA

The first official Twenty20 matches were played on 13 June 2003 between the English counties in the Twenty20 Cup.[7] The first season of Twenty20 in England was a relative success, with the Surrey Lions defeating theWarwickshire Bears by 9 wickets in the final to claim the title.[8] The first Twenty20 match held at Lord’s, on 15 July 2004 between Middlesex andSurrey, attracted a crowd of 27,509, the largest attendance for any county cricket game at the ground other than a one-day final since 1953.[9]

Soon after with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, the popularity of the format grew with unexpected crowd attendance, new regional tournaments such as Pakistan’s Faysal Bank T20 Cup andStanford 20/20 tournament and the financial incentive in the format.

The West Indies regional teams competed in what was named theStanford 20/20 tournament. The event was financially backed by billionaire Allen Stanford, who gave at least US$28,000,000 funding money. It was intended that the tournament would be an annual event. Guyana won the inaugural event, defeating Trinidad and Tobago by 5 wickets, securing US$1,000,000 in prize money.[10][11] A spin-off tournament, the Stanford Super Series, was held in October 2008 between Middlesex and Trinidad and Tobago, the respective winners of the English and Caribbean Twenty20 competitions, and a Stanford Superstars team formed from West Indies domestic players; Trinidad and Tobago won the competition, securing US$280,000 prize money.[12][13] On 1 November, the Stanford Superstars played England in what was expected to be the first of five fixtures in as many years with the winner claiming a US$20,000,000 in each match.[14][15]

Twenty20 Internationals

On 17 February 2005 Australia defeated New Zealand in the first men’s full international Twenty20 match, played at Eden Park in Auckland. The game was played in a light-hearted manner – both sides turned out in kit similar to that worn in the 1980s, the New Zealand team’s a direct copy of that worn by the Beige Brigade. Some of the players also sported moustaches/beards and hair styles popular in the 1980s taking part in a competition amongst themselves for best retro look, at the request of the Beige Brigade. Australia won the game comprehensively, and as the result became obvious towards the end of the NZ innings, the players and umpires took things less seriously – Glenn McGrath jokingly replayed the Trevor Chappell underarm incident from a 1981 ODI between the two sides, and Billy Bowden showed him a mock red card (red cards are not normally used in cricket) in response.

Inaugural tournaments[edit]

Lasith Malinga bowling to Shahid Afridi in the 2009 Final at Lord’s.

It was first decided that every two years an ICC World Twenty20 tournament is to take place, except in the event of an Cricket World Cup being scheduled in the same year, in which case it will be held the year before. The first tournament was in2007 in South Africa where India defeated Pakistan in the final. Two Associate teams had played in the first tournament, selected through the 2007 ICC World Cricket League Division One, a 50-over competition. In December 2007 it was decided to hold a qualifying tournament with a 20-over format to better prepare the teams. With six participants, two would qualify for the 2009 World Twenty20 and would each receive $250,000 in prize money.[16] The second tournament was won by Pakistan who beat Sri Lanka by 8 wickets in England on 21 June 2009. The 2010 ICC World Twenty20 tournament was held in West Indies in May 2010, whereEngland defeated Australia by 7 wickets. The 2012 ICC World Twenty20 was won by the West-Indies, by defeating Sri Lanka at the finals. For the first time, a host nation competed in the final of the ICC World Twenty20. There were 12 participants for the title including Ireland and Afghanistan as 2012 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. It was the first time the T20 World Cup tournament took place in an Asian country.

Expansion to 16 teams[edit]

The 2012 edition was to be expanded into a 16 team format however this was reverted to 12.[17] The 2014 tournament, held in Bangladesh was the first to feature 16 teams including all ten full members and six associate members who qualified through the 2013 ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier. However the top eight full member teams in the ICC T20I Championshiprankings on 8 October 2012 were given a place in the Super 10 stage. The remaining eight teams competed in the group stage, from which two teams advance to the Super 10 stage.[18][19] Three new teams (Nepal, Hong Kong and UAE) made their debut in this tournament.

Format[edit]

Qualification[edit]

All Test-playing nations achieve automatic qualification to the tournament, with the remaining places filled by other ICC members through a qualification tournament. Qualification for the 2007 ICC World Twenty20 came from the results of the first cycle of the World Cricket League, a 50-over league for non-Test playing nations. The two finalists of the Division Onetournament (Kenya and Scotland) qualified for the inaugural tournament alongside the Test-playing nations. For subsequent tournaments, qualification has been achieved through the World Twenty20 Qualifier, with Afghanistan (2010 and 2012), Ireland (2009, 2010, and 2012), Netherlands (2009), and Scotland (2009) each having qualified through this process.

Final tournament[edit]

Within each group (both Group Stage & Super Eight Stage), teams are ranked against each other based on the following criteria:[20]

  1. Higher number of points
  2. If equal, higher number of wins
  3. If still equal, higher net run rate
  4. If still equal, lower bowling strike rate
  5. If still equal, result of head to head meeting.

In case of a tie (that is, both teams scoring the same number of runs at the end of their respective innings), a Super Overwould decide the winner. In the case of a tie occurring again in the Super Over, the match is won by the team that has scored the most sixes in their innings. This is applicable in all stages of the tournament, having been implemented during the 2009 tournament. During the 2007 tournament, a bowl-out was used to decide the loser of tied matches.[21]

Hosts[edit]

The International Cricket Council’s executive committee votes for the hosts of the tournament after examining bids from the nations which have expressed an interest in holding the event. After South Africa in 2007, England, West Indies and Sri Lanka hosted the tournament in 2009, 2010 and 2012 respectively. The last tournament was hosted by Bangladesh in 2014.[22] India will host the 2016 tournament.[23]

Results[edit]

Year Host Nation(s) Final Venue Final
Winner Result Runner-up
2007
Details
 South Africa Wanderers Stadium,Johannesburg  India
157/5 (20 overs)
India won by 5 runs
Scorecard
 Pakistan
152 all out (19.4 overs)
2009
Details
 England Lord’s, London  Pakistan
139/2 (18.4 overs)
Pakistan won by 8 wickets
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
138/6 (20 overs)
2010
Details
 West Indies Kensington Oval,Barbados  England
148/3 (17 overs)
England won by 7 wickets
Scorecard
 Australia
147/6 (20 overs)
2012
Details
 Sri Lanka R Premadasa Stadium, Colombo  West Indies
137/6 (20 overs)
West Indies won by 36 runs
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
101 all out (18.4 overs)
2014
Details
 Bangladesh Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium, Dhaka  Sri Lanka
134/4 (17.5 overs)
Sri Lanka won by 6 wickets
Scorecard
 India
130/4 (20 overs)
2016
Details
 India
2020
Details
 Australia

Team results by tournament[edit]

The ICC does not adjudicate rankings but only rounds a team achieves e.g. Semis, round one etc. The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams in the ICC World Twenty20.

Team 2007
(12)
2009
(12)
2010
(12)
2012
(12)
2014
(16)
2016
(16)
Total
 Afghanistan × × R1
12th
R1
11th
R1
14th
3
 Australia 3rd R1
11th
2nd 3rd R2
8th
q 5
 Bangladesh R2
8th
R1
10th
R1
10th
R1
10th
R2
10th
q 5
 England R2
7th
R2
6th
1st R2
6th
R2
7th
q 5
 Hong Kong × × × R1
15th
1
 India 1st R2
7th
R2
8th
R2
5th
2nd q 5
 Ireland R2
8th
R1
9th
R1
9th
R1
13th
4
 Kenya R1
12th
1
   Nepal × × × R1
12th
1
 Netherlands R1
9th
R2
9th
2
 New Zealand 4th R2
5th
R2
5th
R2
7th
R2
6th
q 5
 Pakistan 2nd 1st 4th 4th R2
5th
q 5
 Scotland R1
10th
R1
12th
2
 South Africa R2
5th
3rd R2
6th
R2
8th
4th q 5
 Sri Lanka R2
6th
2nd 3rd 2nd 1st q 5
 United Arab Emirates × × R1
16th
1
 West Indies R1
11th
4th R2
7th
1st 3rd q 5
 Zimbabwe R1
9th
•• R1
11th
R1
12th
R1
11th
q 4

Debut of teams[edit]

Team appearing for the first time, in alphabetical order per year.

Year Debutants Total
2007  Australia,  Bangladesh,  England,  India,  Kenya,  New Zealand,  Pakistan,  Scotland,  South Africa,  Sri Lanka,  West Indies,  Zimbabwe 12
2009  Ireland,  Netherlands 2
2010  Afghanistan 1
2012 none 0
2014  Hong Kong,    Nepal,  United Arab Emirates 3
Total 18

Other results[edit]

Results of host nations[edit]

Year Host Nation Finish
2007  South Africa Round 2
2009  England Round 2
2010  West Indies Round 2
2012  Sri Lanka Runners-up
2014  Bangladesh Round 2

Results of defending champions[edit]

Year Defending champions Finish
2009  India Round 2
2010  Pakistan Semi Finalists
2012  England Round 2
2014  West Indies Semi Finalists

Statistics and records

ICC Men Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the main tournament. For the women’s tournament, see Women’s Cricket World Cup. For the ongoing tournament, see 2015 Cricket World Cup.
ICC Cricket World Cup
Administrator International Cricket Council(ICC)
Format One Day International
First tournament 1975 (England)
Last tournament 2011 (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka)
Next tournament 2019 (England and Wales)
Tournament format ↓various
Number of teams 19 (all tournaments)
14 (most recent)
Current champion  India (2nd title in 2011)
Most successful  Australia (4 titles)
Most runs India Sachin Tendulkar(2,278)
Most wickets Australia Glenn McGrath (71)
2015 Cricket World Cup

Overview

The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams over past World Cups, as of the end of the 2011 tournament. Teams are sorted by best performance, then total number of wins, then total number of games, then by alphabetical order.

Appearances Statistics
Team Total First Latest Best result Played Won Lost Tie NR Win%
 Australia 10 1975 2011 Champions (1987, 1999, 2003, 2007) 76 55 19 1 1 72.36
 West Indies 10 1975 2011 Champions (1975, 1979) 64 38 25 0 1 59.37
 India 10 1975 2011 Champions (1983, 2011) 67 39 26 1 1 58.20
 Pakistan 10 1975 2011 Champions (1992) 64 36 26 0 2 56.25
 Sri Lanka 10 1975 2011 Champions (1996) 66 31 31 1 2 46.96
 England 10 1975 2011 Runners-up (1979, 1987, 1992) 66 39 25 1 1 59.09
 New Zealand 10 1975 2011 Semifinals (1975, 1979, 1992, 1999, 2007, 2011) 70 40 29 0 1 57.14
 South Africa 6 1992 2011 Semifinals (1992, 1999, 2007) 47 31 14 2 0 65.95
 Kenya 5 1996 2011 Semifinals (2003) 29 6 22 0 1 20.68
 Zimbabwe 8 1983 2011 Super Six (1999, 2003) 51 10 37 1 3 19.60
 Bangladesh 4 1999 2011 Super 8 (2007) 26 8 17 0 1 30.76
 Ireland 2 2007 2011 Super 8 (2007) 15 4 10 1 0 26.66
 Canada 4 1979 2011 8th(1979) 18 2 16 0 0 11.11
 Netherlands 4 1996 2011 11th(2003) 20 2 18 0 0 10.00
 United Arab Emirates 1 1996 1996 11th(1996) 5 1 4 0 0 20.00
 Bermuda 1 2007 2007 16th(2007) 3 0 3 0 0 0.00
 Namibia 1 2003 2003 14th(2003) 6 0 6 0 0 0.00
 Scotland 2 1999 2007 12th(1999) 8 0 8 0 0 0.00
East Africa 1 1975 1975 8th(1975) 3 0 3 0 0 0.00

No longer exists.

The ICC Cricket World Cup is the international championship of One Day International (ODI) cricket. The event is organised by the sport’s governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC), with preliminary qualification rounds leading up to a finals tournament held every four years. The tournament is one of the world’s most viewed sporting events and is considered the “flagship event of the international cricket calendar” by the ICC.[1]

The first World Cup was organised in England in June 1975, with the first ODI cricket match having been played only four years prior. However, a separateWomen’s Cricket World Cup had been held two years before the first men’s tournament, and a tournament involving multiple international teams had been held as early as 1912, when a triangular tournament of Test matches was played between Australia, England and South Africa. Each of the first three World Cups were held in England. From the 1987 tournament onwards, hosting has been shared between countries under an unofficial rotation system, with fourteen ICC members having hosted at least one match in the tournament.

The finals of the World Cup are contested by the ten full members of the ICC (all of which are Test-playing teams) and a number of teams made up fromassociate and affiliate members of the ICC, selected via the World Cricket League and a later qualifying tournament. A total of 19 teams have competed in the ten editions of the tournament, with 14 competing in the 2011 tournament. Australia has won the tournament four times, with the West Indies, India (twice each), Pakistan and Sri Lanka (once each) also having won the tournament. The best performance by a non-full-member team came when Kenya made the semi-finals of the 2003 tournament.

History

Before the first Cricket World Cup

The first ever international cricket match was played between Canada and the United States, on 24 and 25 September 1844.[2] However, the first credited Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England, and the two teams competed regularly for The Ashes in subsequent years. South Africa was admitted to Test status in 1889.[3] Representative cricket teams were selected to tour each other, resulting in bilateral competition. Cricket was also included as an Olympic sport at the 1900 Paris Games, where Great Britain defeated France to win the gold medal.[4] This was the only appearance of cricket at the Summer Olympics.

The first multilateral competition at international level was the 1912 Triangular Tournament, a Test cricket tournament played in England between all three Test-playing nations at the time: England, Australia and South Africa. The event was not a success: the summer was exceptionally wet, making play difficult on damp uncovered pitches, and attendances were poor, attributed to a “surfeit of cricket”.[5] In subsequent years, international Test cricket has generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the triangular Asian Test Championship in 1999.[6]

The number of nations playing Test cricket increased gradually over the years, with the addition of West Indies in 1928,New Zealand in 1930, India in 1932, and Pakistan in 1952. However, international cricket continued to be played as bilateral Test matches over three, four or five days.

In the early 1960s, English county cricket teams began playing a shortened version of cricket which only lasted for one day. Starting in 1962 with a four-team knockout competition known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup,[7] and continuing with the inaugural Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity in England. A national Sunday League was formed in1969. The first One-Day International match was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. It was a forty overgame with eight balls per over.[8]

In the late 1970s, Kerry Packer established the rival World Series Cricket (WSC) competition. It introduced many of the now commonplace features of One Day International cricket, including coloured uniforms, matches played at night under floodlights with a white ball and dark sight screens, and, for television broadcasts, multiple camera angles, effects microphones to capture sounds from the players on the pitch, and on-screen graphics. The first of the matches with coloured uniforms was the WSC Australians in wattle gold versus WSC West Indians in coral pink, played at VFL Park in Melbourne on 17 January 1979. The success and popularity of the domestic one-day competitions in England and other parts of the world, as well as the early One-Day Internationals, prompted the ICC to consider organising a Cricket World Cup.[9]

Prudential World Cups (1975–1983)

The Prudential Cup trophy

The inaugural Cricket World Cup was hosted in 1975 by England, the only nation able to put forward the resources to stage an event of such magnitude at the time. The 1975 tournament started on 7 June.[10] The first three events were held in England and officially known as the Prudential Cup after the sponsors Prudential plc. The matches consisted of 60 six-ball overs per team, played during the daytime in traditional form, with the players wearing cricket whites and using red cricket balls.[11]

Eight teams participated in the first tournament: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, and the West Indies (the six Test nations at the time), together with Sri Lanka and a composite team from East Africa.[12] One notable omission was South Africa, who were banned from international cricket due to apartheid. The tournament was won by the West Indies, who defeated Australia by 17 runs in the final at Lord’s.[12]

The 1979 World Cup saw the introduction of the ICC Trophy competition to select non-Test playing teams for the World Cup,[13] with Sri Lanka and Canada qualifying.[14] The West Indies won a second consecutive World Cup tournament, defeating the hosts England by 92 runs in the final. At a meeting which followed the World Cup, the International Cricket Conference agreed to make the competition a quadrennial event.[14]

The 1983 event was hosted by England for a third consecutive time. By this stage, Sri Lanka had become a Test-playing nation, and Zimbabwe qualified through the ICC Trophy. A fielding circle was introduced, 30 yards (27 m) away from thestumps. Four fieldsmen needed to be inside it at all times.[15] The teams faced each other twice, before moving into the knock-outs. India, an outsider quoted at 66–1 to win by bookmakers before the competition began, were crowned champions after upsetting the West Indies by 43 runs in the final.[9][16]

1987–1996

India and Pakistan jointly hosted the 1987 tournament, the first time that the competition was held outside England. The games were reduced from 60 to 50 overs per innings, the current standard, because of the shorter daylight hours in theIndian subcontinent compared with England’s summer.[17] Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs in the final, the closest margin in World Cup final history.[18][19]

The 1992 World Cup, held in Australia and New Zealand, introduced many changes to the game, such as coloured clothing, white balls, day/night matches, and a change to the fielding restriction rules. The South African cricket team participated in the event for the first time, following the fall of the apartheid regime and the end of the international sports boycott.[20]Pakistan overcame a dismal start in the tournament to eventually defeat England by 22 runs in the final and emerge as winners.[21]

The 1996 championship was held in the Indian subcontinent for a second time, with the inclusion of Sri Lanka as host for some of its group stage matches.[22] In the semi-final, Sri Lanka, heading towards a crushing victory over India at Eden Gardens after the hosts lost eight wickets while scoring 120 runs in pursuit of 252, were awarded victory by default after crowd unrest broke out in protest against the Indian performance.[23] Sri Lanka went on to win their maiden championship by defeating Australia by seven wickets in the final at Lahore.[24]

Australian treble (1999-2007)

In 1999 the event was hosted by England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Netherlands.[25][26] Twelve teams contested the World Cup. Australia qualified for the semi-finals after reaching their target in their Super 6 match against South Africa off the final over of the match.[27] They then proceeded to the final with a tied match in the semi-final also against South Africa where a mix-up between South African batsmen Lance Klusener and Allan Donald saw Donald drop his bat and stranded mid-pitch to be run out. In the final, Australia dismissed Pakistan for 132 and then reached the target in less than 20 overs and with eight wickets in hand.[28]

A large crowd of over 10,000 fans welcome the Australian team on completing the first World Cuphat-trick – Martin Place, Sydney.

South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya hosted the 2003 World Cup. The number of teams participating in the event increased from twelve to fourteen. Kenya‘s victories over Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, among others – and a forfeit by the New Zealand team, which refused to play in Kenya because of security concerns – enabled Kenya to reach the semi-finals, the best result by an associate. In the final, Australia made 359 runs for the loss of two wickets, the largest ever total in a final, defeating India by 125 runs.[29][30]

In 2007 the tournament was hosted by the West Indies and expanded to sixteen teams.[31] Following Pakistan’s upset loss to World Cup debutants Ireland in the group stage, Pakistani coach Bob Woolmer was found dead in his hotel room.[32] Jamaican police had initially launched a murder investigation into Woolmer’s death but later confirmed that he died of heart failure.[33] Australia defeated Sri Lanka in the final by 53 runs (D/L) in farcical light conditions, and extended their undefeated run in the World Cup to 29 matches and winning three straight championships.[34]

2011

India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh jointly hosted the 2011 Cricket World Cup. Pakistan were stripped of their hosting rights following the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, with the games originally scheduled for Pakistan redistributed to the other host countries.[35] The number of teams participating in the World Cup dropped down to fourteen.[36] Australia lost their final group stage match against Pakistan on 19 March 2011, ending an unbeaten streak of 35 World Cup matches, which had begun on 23 May 1999.[37] India won their second World Cup title by beating Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the final in Mumbai, and became the first country to win the final on home soil.[36]

Format

Qualification

The Test-playing nations qualify automatically for the World Cup main event, while the other teams have to qualify through a series of preliminary qualifying tournaments. The One Day International playing nations automatically enter the final qualification tournament, the World Cup Qualifier, along with other nations who have qualified through separate competitions.

Qualifying tournaments were introduced for the second World Cup, where two of the eight places in the finals were awarded to the leading teams in the ICC Trophy.[13] The number of teams selected through the ICC Trophy has varied throughout the years; currently, six teams are selected for the Cricket World Cup. The World Cricket League (administered by theInternational Cricket Council) is the qualification system provided to allow the Associate and Affiliate members of the ICC more opportunities to qualify. The name “ICC Trophy” has been changed to “ICC World Cup Qualifier”.[38]

Under the current qualifying process, the World Cricket League, all 91 Associate and Affiliate members of the ICC are able to qualify for the World Cup. Associate and Affiliate members must play between two and five stages in the ICC World Cricket League to qualify for the World Cup finals, depending on the Division in which they start the qualifying process.

Process summary in chronological order:

  1. Regional tournaments: Top teams from each regional tournaments will be promoted to a division depending on the teams’ rankings according to the ICC and each division’s empty spots.
  2. Division One: 6 Teams – All automatically qualify for the World Cup Qualifier.
  3. Division Two: 6 Teams – Top 4 qualify for the World Cup Qualifier.
  4. Division Three: 6 Teams – Top 2 promoted to Division Two.
  5. Division Four: 6 Teams – Top 2 promoted to Division Three.
  6. Division Five: 6 Teams – Top 2 promoted to Division Four.
  7. Division Three (second edition): 6 Teams – Top 2 qualify for the World Cup Qualifier.
  8. ICC World Cup Qualifier: 12 Teams – Top 6 are awarded ODI status and Top 4 qualify for the World Cup.

Tournament

The captains of the 2007 Cricket World Cup.

The format of the Cricket World Cup has changed greatly over the course of its history. Each of the first four tournaments was played by eight teams, divided into two groups of four.[39] The competition consisted of two stages, a group stage and a knock-outstage. The four teams in each group played each other in the round-robin group stage, with the top two teams in each group progressing to the semi-finals. The winners of the semi-finals played against each other in the final. With South Africa returning in the fifth tournament in 1992 as a result of the end of the apartheid boycott, nine teams played each other once in the group phase, and the top four teams progressed to the semi-finals.[40] The tournament was further expanded in 1996, with two groups of six teams.[41] The top four teams from each group progressed to quarter-finals and semi-finals.

A new format was used for the 1999 and 2003 World Cups. The teams were split into two pools, with the top three teams in each pool advancing to the Super 6.[42] The Super 6 teams played the three other teams that advanced from the other group. As they advanced, the teams carried their points forward from previous matches against other teams advancing alongside them, giving them an incentive to perform well in the group stages.[42] The top four teams from the Super 6 stage progressed to the semi-finals, with the winners playing in the final.

The format used in the 2007 World Cup features 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.[43] Within each group, the teams play each other in a round-robin format. Teams earn points for wins and half-points for ties. The top two teams from each group move forward to the Super 8 round. The Super 8 teams play the other six teams that progressed from the different groups. Teams earned points in the same way as the group stage, but carried their points forward from previous matches against the other teams who qualified from the same group to the “Super 8” stage.[44] The top four teams from theSuper 8 round advance to the semi-finals, and the winners of the semi-finals play in the final.

The format used in the 2011 and 2015[45] World Cups features two groups of seven teams, each playing in a round-robin format. The top four teams from each group proceed to the knock out stage consisting of quarter-finals, semi-finals and ultimately the final.[46]

Trophy

The ICC Cricket World Cup Trophy is presented to the winners of the World Cup. The current trophy was created for the 1999 championships, and was the first permanent prize in the tournament’s history. Prior to this, different trophies were made for each World Cup.[47] The trophy was designed and produced in London by a team of craftsmen from Garrard & Coover a period of two months.

The current trophy is made from silver and gild, and features a golden globe held up by three silver columns. The columns, shaped as stumps and bails, represent the three fundamental aspects of cricket: batting, bowling and fielding, while the globe characterises a cricket ball.[48] It stands 60 centimetres high and weighs approximately 11 kilograms. The names of the previous winners are engraved on the base of the trophy, with space for a total of twenty inscriptions. The ICC keeps the original trophy. A replica differing only in the inscriptions is permanently awarded to the winning team.[49]

Media coverage

Mello

The tournament is the world’s third largest (with only the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics exceeding it), being televised in over 200 countries to over 2.2 billion television viewers.[50][51][52][53]Television rights, mainly for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, were sold for over US$1.1 billion,[54] and sponsorship rights were sold for a further US$500 million.[55] The 2003 Cricket World Cup matches were attended by 626,845 people,[56] while the 2007 Cricket World Cup sold more than 672,000 tickets.[57][58]

Successive World Cup tournaments have generated increasing media attention as One-Day International cricket has become more established. The 2003 World Cup in South Africa was the first to sport a mascot, Dazzler the zebra.[59] An orange mongoose known as Mello was the mascot for the2007 Cricket World Cup.[60] Stumpy, a blue elephant was the mascot for the 2011 World Cup.[61]

On 13 February the opening of the 2015 tournament was celebrated with a Google Doodle.[62]

Selection of hosts

Civic Centre, South Africa honours the 2003 World Cup.

The International Cricket Council’s executive committee votes for the hosts of the tournament after examining the bids made by the nations keen to hold a Cricket World Cup.[63]

England hosted the first three competitions. The ICC decided that England should host the first tournament because it was ready to devote the resources required to organising the inaugural event.[10] India volunteered to host the third Cricket World Cup, but most ICC members preferred England as the longer period of daylight in England in June meant that a match could be completed in one day.[64] The 1987 Cricket World Cup was held in India and Pakistan, the first hosted outside England.[65]

Many of the tournaments have been jointly hosted by nations from the same geographical region, such as South Asia in 1987, 1996 and 2011, Australasia in 1992 and 2015, Southern Africa in 2003 and West Indies in 2007.

Tournament history

Year Host Nation(s) Final Venue Final
Winner Result Runner-up
1975
Details
England
England
Lord’s, London,
United Kingdom
 West Indies
291/8 (60 overs)
West Indies won by 17 runs
Scorecard
 Australia
274 all out (58.4 overs)
1979
Details
England
England
Lord’s, London,
United Kingdom
 West Indies
286/9 (60 overs)
West Indies won by 92 runs
Scorecard
 England
194 all out (51 overs)
1983
Details
England Wales
England, Wales
Lord’s, London,
United Kingdom
 India
183 all out (54.4 overs)
India won by 43 runs
Scorecard
 West Indies
140 all out (52 overs)
1987
Details
India Pakistan
India, Pakistan
Eden Gardens, Calcutta,
India
 Australia
253/5 (50 overs)
Australia won by 7 runs
Scorecard
 England
246/8 (50 overs)
1992
Details
Australia New Zealand
Australia, New Zealand
MCG, Melbourne,
Australia
 Pakistan
249/6 (50 overs)
Pakistan won by 22 runs
Scorecard
 England
227 all out (49.2 overs)
1996
Details
Pakistan India Sri Lanka
Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka
Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore,
Pakistan
 Sri Lanka
245/3 (46.2 overs)
Sri Lanka won by 7 wickets
Scorecard
 Australia
241/7 (50 overs)
1999
Details
England Wales Scotland Republic of Ireland Netherlands
England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands
Lord’s, London,
United Kingdom
 Australia
133/2 (20.1 overs)
Australia won by 8 wickets
Scorecard
 Pakistan
132 all out (39 overs)
2003
Details
South Africa Zimbabwe Kenya
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya
Wanderers,Johannesburg,
South Africa
 Australia
359/2 (50 overs)
Australia won by 125 runs
Scorecard
 India
234 all out (39.2 overs)
2007
Details
West Indies Cricket Board
West Indies
Kensington Oval,Bridgetown,
Barbados
 Australia
281/4 (38 overs)
Australia won by 53 runs (D/L)
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
215/8 (36 overs)
2011
Details
India Sri Lanka Bangladesh
India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh
Wankhede Stadium,Mumbai,
India
 India
277/4 (48.2 overs)
India won by 6 wickets
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
274/6 (50 overs)
2015
Details
Australia New Zealand
Australia, New Zealand
MCG, Melbourne,
Australia
2019
Details
England Wales
England, Wales
Lord’s, London,
England
2023
Details
India
India

Results

Map of each nation’s best results

Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once (excluding qualification tournaments). Seven teams have competed in every finals tournament, five of which have won the title.[9] The West Indies won the first two tournaments,Australia has won four, India has won two, while Pakistan and Sri Lanka have each won once. The West Indies (1975 and 1979) and Australia (1999, 2003 and 2007) are the only nations to have won consecutive titles.[9] Australia has played in six of the ten final matches (1975, 1987, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007). England has yet to win the World Cup, but has been runners-up three times (1979, 1987, 1992). The best result by a non-Test playing nation is the semi-final appearance by Kenya in the 2003 tournament; while the best result by a non-Test playing team on their debut is the Super 8 (second round) by Ireland in 2007.[9]

Sri Lanka as a co-host of the 1996 Cricket World Cup was the first host to win the tournament, though the final was held in Pakistan.[9] India won in 2011 as host and was the first team to win in a final played in their own country.[66] England is the only other host to have made the final, in 1979. Other countries which have achieved or equalled their best World Cup results while co-hosting the tournament are New Zealand as semi-finalists in 1992; Zimbabwe who reached the Super Six in 2003; and Kenya as semi-finalists in 2003.[9] In 1987, co-hosts India and Pakistan both reached the semi-finals, but were eliminated by Australia and England respectively.[9] Australia in 1992, England in 1999, South Africa in 2003, andBangladesh in 2011 have been the host teams that were eliminated in the first round.

Teams’ performances

Comprehensive teams’ performances of over the past World Cups:

Team \ Host 1975 1979 1983 1987 1992 1996 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 2023
England England England India
Pakistan
Australia
New Zealand
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
England South Africa
Zimbabwe
Kenya
West Indies Cricket Board India
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Australia
New Zealand
England India
 Afghanistan Q
 Australia 2nd GP GP 1st 5th 2nd 1st 1st 1st QF Q
 Bangladesh GP GP 7th GP Q
 Bermuda GP
 Canada GP GP GP GP
East Africa GP
 England SF 2nd SF 2nd 2nd QF GP GP 5th QF Q Q
 India GP GP 1st SF 7th SF 6th 2nd GP 1st Q Q
 Ireland 8th GP Q
 Kenya GP GP SF GP GP
 Namibia GP
 Netherlands GP GP GP GP
 New Zealand SF SF GP GP SF QF SF 5th SF SF Q
 Pakistan GP SF SF SF 1st QF 2nd GP GP SF Q
 Scotland GP GP Q
 South Africa SF QF SF GP SF QF Q
 Sri Lanka GP GP GP GP 8th 1st GP SF 2nd 2nd Q
 United Arab Emirates GP Q
 West Indies 1st 1st 2nd GP 6th SF GP GP 6th QF Q
 Zimbabwe GP GP 9th GP 5th 6th GP GP Q

No longer exists.

Prior to the 1992 World Cup, South Africa was banned due to apartheid.

The number of wins followed by Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings till the 1987 World Cup.

The number of points followed by, head to head performance and then Net Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings for the World Cups from 1992 onwards.

Legend

  • 1st – Winner
  • 2nd – Runner up
  • SF – Semi-final
  • S8 – Super Eight (2007 only)
  • S6 – Super Six (1999–2003)
  • QF – Quarter-finals (1996 & 2011)
  • GP – Group – First round
  • Q – Qualified

Debutant teams

Year Teams
1975  Australia, East Africa,  England,  India,  New Zealand,  Pakistan,  Sri Lanka,  West Indies
1979  Canada
1983  Zimbabwe
1987 none
1992  South Africa
1996  Kenya,  Netherlands,  United Arab Emirates
1999  Bangladesh,  Scotland
2003  Namibia
2007  Bermuda,  Ireland
2011 none
2015  Afghanistan

No longer exists.

Awards

Man of the tournament

Since 1992, one player has been declared as “Man of the Tournament” at the end of the World Cup finals:[67]

Year Player Performance details
1992 New Zealand Martin Crowe 456 runs
1996 Sri Lanka Sanath Jayasuriya 221 runs and 7 wickets
1999 South Africa Lance Klusener 281 runs and 17 wickets
2003 India Sachin Tendulkar 673 runs and 2 wickets
2007 Australia Glenn McGrath 26 wickets
2011 India Yuvraj Singh 362 runs and 15 wickets

Man of the Match in the Final

There were no Man of the Tournament awards before 1992 but Man of the Match awards have always been given for individual matches. Winning the Man of the Match in the final is logically noteworthy, as this indicates the player deemed to have played the biggest part in the World Cup final. To date the award has always gone to a member of the winning side. The Man of the Match award in the final of the competition has been awarded to:[67]

Year Player Performance details
1975 West Indies Cricket Board Clive Lloyd 102 runs
1979 West Indies Cricket Board Viv Richards 138*
1983 India Mohinder Amarnath 3/12 and 26
1987 Australia David Boon 75 runs
1992 Pakistan Wasim Akram 33 and 3/49
1996 Sri Lanka Aravinda de Silva 107* and 3/42
1999 Australia Shane Warne 4/33
2003 Australia Ricky Ponting 140*
2007 Australia Adam Gilchrist 149
2011 India Mahendra Singh Dhoni 91*

Tournament records

Main individual and team records

Sachin Tendulkar, the leading run-scorer in World Cup history.

World Cup records[68]
Batting
Most runs India Sachin Tendulkar 2,278 (19922011)
Highest average (min. 20 inns.) West Indies Cricket Board Viv Richards 63.31 (19751987)
Highest score West Indies Cricket Board Chris Gayle vZimbabwe 215 (2015)
Highest partnership West Indies Cricket Board Chris Gayle & Marlon Samuels
(2nd wicket) v Zimbabwe
372 (2015)
Most runs in a tournament India Sachin Tendulkar 673 (2003)
Bowling
Most wickets Australia Glenn McGrath 71 (19962007)
Lowest average (min. 1000 balls bowled) Australia Glenn McGrath 19.21 (19962007)
Best bowling figures Australia Glenn McGrath vNamibia 7/15 (2003)
Most wickets in a tournament Australia Glenn McGrath 26 (2007)
Fielding
Most dismissals (wicket-keeper) Australia Adam Gilchrist 39 (19992007)
Most catches (fielder) Australia Ricky Ponting 28 (19962011)
Team
Highest score  Australia v Afghanistan 417/6 (2015)
Lowest score  Canada v Sri Lanka 36 (2003)
Highest win % Australia Australia 74% (Played 76, Won 55)
Most consecutive wins Australia Australia 25 (19992011)
Most consecutive tournament wins Australia Australia 3 (19992007)

See also

ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup
Administrator International Cricket Council
Format One Day International
First tournament 1988
Last tournament 2014
Tournament format Round-robin
Knock-out
Number of teams 16
Current champion  South Africa (1st title)
Most successful  Australia (3 titles)
 India (3 titles)

The ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup is an international cricket tournament contested by national Under-19 teams. The tournament was not staged after its first edition in 1988 till 1998 and since then has been organised by the ICC as a biennial event. The number of competing teams in the tournament has increased from eight in 1988 to the present 16 giving an opportunity for a number of associate and affiliate teams to showcase their talent.

Summary of all teams in all tournaments[edit]

The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams over past Under 19 World Cups, as at the end of the2014 tournament. Teams are sorted by best performance, then winning percentage, then (if equal) by alphabetical order.

No longer exist.

Team Appearances Best result Statistics
Total First Latest Played Won Lost Tie NR Win%
 Australia 10 1988 2014 Champions (1988, 2002,2010) 67 50 15 0 2 76.92
 India 10 1988 2014 Champions (2000, 2008,2012) 65 47 17 0 1 73.43
 Pakistan 10 1988 2014 Champions (2004, 2006) 63 45 18 0 0 74.42
 South Africa 9 1998 2014 Champions (2014) 55 40 14 0 1 71.07
 England 10 1988 2014 Champions (1998) 63 36 26 0 1 58.06
 West Indies 10 1988 2014 Runners-up (2004) 65 39 26 0 0 60.00
 Sri Lanka 10 1988 2014 Runners-up (2000) 62 33 28 0 1 54.09
 New Zealand 10 1988 2014 Runners-up (1998) 60 28 31 0 1 47.45
 Bangladesh 9 1998 2014 5th place (2006) 58 40 16 1 1 71.05
 Zimbabwe 9 1998 2014 6th place (2004) 56 25 31 0 0 44.64
 Afghanistan 3 2010 2014 7th place (2014) 18 7 11 0 0 38.88
   Nepal 6 2000 2012 8th place (2000) 37 19 17 0 1 52.77
 Ireland 7 1998 2012 10th place (2010) 43 14 28 1 0 33.72
 Scotland 6 1998 2014 11th place (2012) 36 11 25 0 0 30.55
 Kenya 3 1998 2002 11th place (1998) 17 5 12 0 0 29.41
 Canada 4 2002 2014 11th place (2010) 23 3 18 1 1 15.90
 Namibia 7 1998 2014 11th place (2008) 41 6 34 1 0 15.85
 United States 2 2006 2010 12th place (2006) 11 2 8 0 1 20.00
 United Arab Emirates 1 2014 2014 12th place (2014) 6 1 5 0 0 16.66
 Papua New Guinea 7 1998 2014 12th place (2008,2010) 41 3 38 0 0 7.31
 Denmark 1 1998 1998 13th place (1998) 6 2 4 0 0 33.33
 Netherlands 1 2000 2000 14th place (2000) 6 1 4 0 1 20.00
 Hong Kong 1 2010 2010 14th place (2010) 6 1 5 0 0 16.66
 Uganda 2 2004 2006 14th place (2004,2006) 12 2 10 0 0 16.66
 Bermuda 1 2008 2008 15th place (2008) 5 1 4 0 0 20.00
 Malaysia 1 2008 2008 16th place (2008) 5 1 4 0 0 20.00
Americas 1 2000 2000 16th place (2000) 6 0 6 0 0 0.00
ICC Associates 1 1988 1988 8th place (1988) 7 0 7 0 0 0.00

No longer exist.

The result percentage excludes no results and counts ties as half a win

Team result by tournament[edit]

Legend
  • 1st – Champions
  • 2nd – Runners-up
  • 3rd – Third place
  • Q – Qualified for upcoming tournament
  • * – Team was ineligible for tournament
  • italics – Team is defunct
  •     — Hosts

History[edit]

1988 (Winner: Australia)[edit]

The inaugural event was titled the McDonald’s Bicentennial Youth World Cup, and was held in 1988 as part of theAustralian Bicentenary celebrations. It took place in South Australia and Victoria. Teams from the seven Test-playing nations, as well as an ICC Associates XI, competed in a round-robin format. Australia lost only one match, their final round-robin game against Pakistan by which time they had qualified for the semis. They went on to beat Pakistan by five wickets in the final, thanks to an unbeaten hundred from Brett Williams. England and West Indies made up the last four, but India were the real disappointments. After opening with a good win against England, they suffered hefty defeats in four matches to be knocked out early. The tournament was notable for the number of future international players who competed. Future England captains Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton played, as did Indian spinner Venkatapathy Raju, New Zealand all-rounder Chris Cairns, Pakistanis Mushtaq Ahmed and Inzamam-ul-Haq, Sri Lankan Sanath Jayasuriya, and West IndiansBrian Lara, Ridley Jacobs, and Jimmy Adams. Australia’s Brett Williams was the leading run-scorer, with 471 runs at anaverage of 52.33. Wayne Holdsworth from Australia and Mushtaq Ahmed were the leading wicket-takers, with 19 wickets ataverages of 12.52 and 16.21 respectively.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 8 teams were: 1.Australia, 2.Pakistan, 3.West Indies, 4.England, 5.Sri Lanka, 6.India, 7.New Zealand, 8.ICC Associates

1998 (Winner: England)[edit]

England were the unexpected winners of the second Under-19 World Cup in South Africa. In 1998, the event was relaunched in South Africa as a biennial tournament. The only previous tournament of its kind was held ten years earlier. In addition to the nine Test-playing nations, there were teams from Bangladesh, Kenya, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Namibiaand Papua New Guinea. The teams were divided into four pools, named after Gavaskar, Sobers, Cowdrey and Bradman, and the top two sides from each progressed to two Super League pools, whose winners advanced to the final. In order to give everyone a decent amount of cricket, the non-qualifiers competed in a Plate League, won by Bangladesh, who beatWest Indies in the final. West Indies failed to qualify for the Super League after a fiasco concerning the composition of their squad – they arrived with seven players who contravened the age restrictions for the tournament. The Super League, in which every game was covered live on South African satellite television, also threw up a number of shocks and tense finishes; both pools came down to net run-rate at the finish. England, from being down and almost out, beat Pakistan – who surprisingly lost all three of their games – but lost a rain-affected match to India. Australia had beaten India and Pakistan and were favourites to reach the final. Only a massive defeat by England could deny them: but that is precisely what they suffered. In front of a crowd of about 6,000 at Newlands, they were bowled out for 147. New Zealand joined England in the final, where a century from England’s Stephen Peters won the day. Chris Gayle was the tournament’s leading run-scorer, with 364 runs at an average of 72.80. West Indian Ramnaresh Sarwan and Zimbabwean Mluleki Nkala were the leading wicket-takers, with 16 wickets at 10.81 and 13.06 respectively.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.England, 2.New Zealand, 3.South Africa, 4.Australia, 5.India, 6.Sri Lanka, 7.Pakistan, 8.Zimbabwe, 9.Bangladesh, 10.West Indies, 11.Kenya, 12.Scotland, 13.Denmark, 14.Ireland, 15.Namibia, 16.Papua New Guinea

2000 (Winner: India)[edit]

The 2000 tournament was held in Sri Lanka, and replicated the format from 1998. Participating nations included the nine Test-playing nations, as well as Bangladesh, Kenya, Ireland, Namibia, Holland, Nepal and the Americas. To the disappointment of a large crowd at Colombo’s SSC, Sri Lanka fell at the final hurdle in a final dominated by India. The winners remained unbeaten throughout, and destroyed Australia by 170 runs in the semi-final to underline their supremacy. In the other semi-final, Sri Lanka delighted a crowd of 5000 at Galle by beating Pakistan. The fact that three of the four semi-finalists were from Asia and so more attuned to the conditions was coincidental – they played the better cricket and, in Pakistan’s case, had a very experienced squad. England, the defending champions, were most disappointing, and they won only one match against a Test-playing country, and that a last-ball victory over Zimbabwe. South Africa, one of the favourites, were desperately unlucky to be eliminated after three no-results gave them three points while Nepal, with four points courtesy of one win over Kenya, went through to the Super League instead. The format of the tournament was as in 1997-98, with four groups of four and then a Super League and final. Graeme Smith was the tournament’s leading run-scorer, with 348 runs at an average of 87.00. Pakistan’s Zahid Saeed was the leading wicket-taker, with 15 wickets at 7.60. India’s Yuvraj Singh was named Man of the Series. India clinched the title for the first time under the captaincy ofMohammed Kaif.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.India, 2.Sri Lanka, 3.Pakistan, 4.Australia, 5.West Indies, 6.England, 7.New Zealand, 8.Nepal, 9.South Africa, 10.Bangladesh, 11.Zimbabwe, 12.Ireland, 13.Kenya, 14.Netherlands, 15.Namibia, 16.Americas

2002 (Winner: Australia)[edit]

The fourth Under-19 World Cup held in New Zealand only confirmed Australia’s dominance of the game, and from their opening match, when they obliterated Kenya by 430 runs, through to their comprehensive victory over South Africa in the final, they were never threatened. Participating nations included the ten Test-playing nations, plus Canada, Kenya, Namibia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, and Scotland. Their captain, Cameron White, was singled out for praise for his leadership, and he chipped in with 423 runs at 70.50. And they didn’t rely on pace either, playing only two seamers and four slow bowlers, with Xavier Doherty, a slow left-armer, leading the wicket-takers with 16 at 9.50 and all without a single wide. In contrast, India, the holders, underperformed in their semi-final against South Africa, a team they had easily beaten a week or so earlier. They also suffered embarrassing defeats to neighbours Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan, however, provided the main upset when they lost to Nepal by 30 runs, and Nepal also gave England a few uneasy moments. Zimbabwe won the plate competition, with their expected opponents, Bangladesh, beaten in the semi-final by Nepal. Australian Cameron Whitewas the tournament’s leading run-scorer, with 423 runs at an average of 70.50 and Xavier Doherty was the leading wicket-taker, with 16 wickets at 9.50. Tatenda Taibu, Zimbabwe’s captain, was Man of the Series for his 250 runs and 12 wickets, not to mention his wicket-keeping in between bowling stints.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.Australia, 2.South Africa, 3.India, 4.West Indies, 5.Pakistan, 6.New Zealand, 7.England, 8.Sri Lanka, 9.Zimbabwe, 10.Nepal, 11.Bangladesh, 12.Namibia, 13.Scotland, 14.Kenya, 15.Canada, 16.Papua New Guinea

2004 (Winner: Pakistan)[edit]

The 2004 tournament was held in Bangladesh. More than 350,000 spectators saw the 54 matches played in the tournament. The finale ended with a close final between the two best teams – West Indies and Pakistan. It was won by Pakistan by 25 runs against West Indies and a 30,000 crowd acclaimed the victorious Pakistanis almost as their own. The players, from the ten Test countries and six other nations, were feted wherever they went, and the appetite for cricket was remarkable: even Zimbabwe v Canada sold out. The shock was the elimination from the main competition of holders Australia, bowled out for 73 and beaten by Zimbabwe in the group stage when Tinashe Panyangara took 6 for 31, the second-best figures in the competition’s history. And Australia then lost to Bangladesh in the plate final amid thumping drums and gleeful celebrations. The downside was the quality of the cricket, which was often mediocre on some indifferent pitches, and the reporting of six unidentified bowlers for having suspect actions. Pakistan would have finished unbeaten but for a hiccup against England – when both teams had already qualified for the semis. England reached the last four, which was progress, and Alastair Cook looked a class apart. But they came unstuck against West Indies’ spinners in the semi-final. India completed the semi-finalists. Dhawan and Suresh Raina were the backbone of a strong batting line-up, and Raina’s 90 from just 38 balls against the hapless Scots was as brutal an innings as one will see at any level. Both looked international-class already, though faced with a tough task breaking into their senior side’s formidable top order. The captain Ambati Rayudu had been hailed as the next great batting hope, having scored a century and a double in a first-class match at the age of 17. But he did not score the runs promised and was banned by the referee John Morrison from the semi-final after allowing a funereal over-rate during the Super League win against Sri Lanka: eight overs were bowled in the first 50 minutes. India’s Shikhar Dhawan was named Man of the Tournament, and was the tournament’s leading run-scorer, with 505 runs at an average of 84.16. Bangladeshi Enamul Haque was the leading wicket-taker, with 22 wickets at 10.18.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.Pakistan, 2.West Indies, 3.India, 4.England, 5.Sri Lanka, 6.Zimbabwe, 7.South Africa, 8.New Zealand, 9.Bangladesh, 10.Australia, 11.Ireland, 12.Scotland, 13.Nepal, 14.Uganda, 15.Canada, 16.Papua New Guinea

2006 (Winner: Pakistan)[edit]

This tournament was always going to struggle to live up to the overwhelming response that greeted the previous event in Bangladesh. Despite free tickets the matches were sparsely attended even when the home side were in action, but it shouldn’t detract from an impressive two weeks which finished with Pakistan securing their second consecutive title in an extraordinary final against India at the Premadasa Stadium. Pakistan crumbled to 109, but in a thrilling passage of play reduced India to 9 for 6. Jamshed Ahmed and Anwar Ali, two of the success stories of the tournament, did the damage and there was no way back for India who fell 38 runs short. These two teams and Australia were the pick of the sides and along with England – who surpassed expectation to reach the semi-finals after beating a talented Bangladesh side – made up the final four. A number of players caught the eye, notably Australia captain Moises Henriques, the Indian batsmen Sumit thakur – the tournament’s leading run-scorer – and team-mate Rohit Sharma, along with legspinner Piyush Chawla, who a few weeks later made his Test debut against England. However, perhaps the best story of the tournament was Nepal claiming the Plate trophy after a thrilling victory against New Zealand having also beaten South Africa during the event.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.Pakistan, 2.India, 3.Australia, 4.England, 5.Bangladesh, 6.Sri Lanka, 7.Zimbabwe, 8.West Indies, 9.Nepal, 10.New Zealand, 11.South Africa, 12.USA, 13.Ireland, 14.Uganda, 15.Namibia, 16.Scotland

2008 (Winner: India)[edit]

It was the first time the tournament was held in an Associate Member country. The 2008 Under-19 Cricket World Cup was held in Malaysia from 17 February to 2 March 2008. Along with hosts, 15 other teams battled in 44 matches packed into 15 days across three cities. India, still smarting from the loss in the previous edition had reason to be upbeat with Tanmay Srivastava, a mature batsman who eventually finished as the tournament’s leading run-getter, in their ranks. Australia and England had forgettable campaigns, coming up short against the big teams after making mincemeat of the minnows. Defending champions Pakistan were fortuitous to reach the semi-finals as their batsmen never really got going and, against South Africa in the semi-finals, their luck finally ran out while chasing 261. New Zealand, boosted by Man of the Tournament Tim Southee, were impressive before losing to India in a narrow run-chase under lights and cloudy skies in the other semi-final. South Africa’s captain Wayne Parnell had played a major role in ensuring their passage to the summit clash, picking up the most wickets in the tournament en route. But they had lost to India in the group stages and lightning did strike twice. India under the leadership of Virat Kohli, after being bowled out for 159, emerged triumphant by 12 runs under the D/L method and were crowned champions for the second time.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.India, 2.South Africa, 3.Pakistan, 4.New Zealand, 5.England, 6.Australia, 7.Sri Lanka, 8.Bangladesh, 9.West Indies, 10.Nepal, 11.Namibia, 12.Papua New Guinea, 13.Ireland, 14.Zimbabwe, 15.Bermuda, 16.Malaysia [1]

2010 (Winner: Australia)[edit]

The 2010 Under-19 Cricket World Cup was held in New Zealand in January 2010. The tournament was hosted in New Zealand after the ICC took it away from Kenya on the flimsiest of reasons which ridiculed its own mission to spread the game. Kenya were further kicked by the ICC as their side was not allowed to participate as it had not won the African qualifying event – a weakened side had been fielded as at the time, as hosts, they did not need to qualify. As it was, New Zealand did a decent job but crowds were dismal and the group stages were as tediously predictable as in the senior tournament, with the better-funded big nations dominating. South Africa did beat Australia in a good match but a dead rubber. The competition came alive in the quarter-finals as West Indies beat England and Sri Lanka defeated South Africa. The best tie of the competition came when Pakistan beat fierce rivals India by two wickets with three balls remaining in a low-scoring match. The final between Australia and Pakistan was a rematch of the first tournament, and Australia won by 25 runs in a game where fortunes ebbed and flowed throughout.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.Australia, 2.Pakistan, 3.West Indies, 4.Sri Lanka, 5.South Africa, 6.India, 7.New Zealand, 8.England, 9.Bangladesh, 10.Ireland, 11.Canada, 12.Papua New Guinea, 13.Zimbabwe, 14.Hong Kong, 15.USA, 16.Afghanistan

2012 (Winner: India)[edit]

2012 Under-19 Cricket World Cup was held in Tony Ireland Stadium, Australia. Along with the 10 ten test playing nations, Afghanistan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Ireland, Scotland and Namibia also participated in this tournament. Australia lost against India in the final on 26 August 2012. India’s third U19 World Cup means they tie for the most with Australia. Sri Lanka could not go through into the last eight but won the Plate championship by defeating Afghanistan by 7 wickets. Reece Topley of England was the highest wicket taker whereas Anamul Haque of Banglasdesh was the top run getter. India won the final against Australia with 14 balls to spare and 6 wickets remaining. Captain Unmukt Chand played a match winning innings of 111* not out in 130 balls with the help of 6 sixes & 7 fours. Sandeep Sharma also excelled with four wickets under his belt.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.India, 2.Australia, 3.South Africa, 4.New Zealand, 5.England, 6.West Indies, 7.Bangladesh, 8.Pakistan, 9.Sri Lanka, 10.Afghanistan, 11.Scotland, 12.Ireland, 13.Nepal, 14.Papua New Guinea, 15.Zimbabwe, 16.Namibia

2014 (Winner: South Africa)[edit]

2014 Under-19 Cricket World-Cup was held in Dubai(U.A.E) in 2014. It was the first time that U.A.E hosted an ICC event. Afghanistan was the only non-full member to qualify for the Quarter Finals. This was the first time that Afghanistan reached the last eight of this tournament, courtesy of their stellar performance against Australia in the group stage. In fact, this was the second time that a non-test playing nation qualified for the Super League/ Quarter Finals, Nepal being the first one in the 2000 edition. India wobbled in the Quarter Finals against England and finally lost in the final over. This was the first semi-final berth for England in last four editions. Pakistan beat England in the semis to reach its fifth Under-19 Final, becoming the first team to do so. South Africa beat Australia in the second semi-final. In a one-sided final, South Africa beat Pakistans and claimed its maiden U-19 World Cup title. Corbin Bosch, son of former South African cricketer Tertius Bosch, was the Man of the Match in the finals and Aiden Markram was the Man of the Series. South Africa did not lose even a single match in the entire tournament.

The final ranks in the tournament for the 16 teams were: 1.South Africa, 2.Pakistan, 3.England, 4.Australia, 5.India, 6.West Indies, 7.Afghanistan, 8.Sri Lanka, 9.Bangladesh, 10.New Zealand, 11.Zimbabwe, 12.UAE, 13.Namibia, 14.Scotland, 15.Canada, 16.Papua New Guinea

Results[edit]

Year Venue Winner Runners up Semi Finalist 1 (3rd Place) Semi Finalist 2 (4th Place) Plate Champions†
1988  Australia  Australia  Pakistan  West Indies  England Not Played
1998  South Africa  England  New Zealand  South Africa  Australia  Bangladesh
2000  Sri Lanka  India  Sri Lanka  Pakistan  Australia  South Africa
2002  New Zealand  Australia  South Africa  India  West Indies  Zimbabwe
2004  Bangladesh  Pakistan  West Indies  India  England  Bangladesh
2006  Sri Lanka  Pakistan  India  Australia  England    Nepal
2008  Malaysia  India  South Africa  Pakistan  New Zealand  West Indies
2010  New Zealand  Australia  Pakistan  West Indies  Sri Lanka  Bangladesh
2012  Australia  India  Australia  South Africa  New Zealand  Sri Lanka
2014  United Arab Emirates  South Africa  Pakistan  England  Australia  Bangladesh
2016  Bangladesh
2018  New Zealand
2020  South Africa

† The Plate Championship is played among teams not qualified for the second round and is treated as play-off for 9th position as 8 nations advance to the second round of the main tournament.

♦ Officially, no semi finals were played in this tournament. These teams were the 3rd and the 4th ranked teams in the Super League.

Team Australia
1988
South Africa
1998
Sri Lanka
2000
New Zealand
2002
Bangladesh
2004
Sri Lanka
2006
Malaysia
2008
New Zealand
2010
Australia
2012
United Arab Emirates
2014
Bangladesh
2016
New Zealand
2018
South Africa
2020
Total
 Afghanistan 16th 10th 7th Q 3
 Australia 1st 4th 4th 1st 10th 3rd 6th 1st 2nd 4th Q Q Q 10
 Bangladesh 9th 10th 11th 9th 5th 8th 9th 7th 9th Q Q Q 9
 Bermuda 15th 1
 Canada 15th 15th 11th 15th 4
 Denmark 13th 1
 England 4th 1st 6th 7th 4th 4th 5th 8th 5th 3rd Q Q Q 10
 Fiji Q 1
 Hong Kong 14th 1
 ICC Americas 16th 1
 ICC Associates 8th 1
 India 6th 5th 1st 3rd 3rd 2nd 1st 6th 1st 5th Q Q Q 10
 Ireland 14th 12th 11th 13th 10th 12th 6
 Kenya 11th 13th 14th 3
 Malaysia 16th 1
 Namibia 15th 15th 12th 15th 11th 16th 13th Q 7
 Netherlands 14th 1
   Nepal 8th 10th 13th 9th 10th 13th 6
 New Zealand 7th 2nd 7th 6th 8th 10th 4th 7th 4th 10th Q Q Q 10
 Pakistan 2nd 7th 3rd 5th 1st 1st 3rd 2nd 8th 2nd Q Q Q 10
 Papua New Guinea 16th 16th 16th 12th 12th 14th 16th 7
 South Africa * 3rd 9th 2nd 7th 11th 2nd 5th 3rd 1st Q Q Q 9
 Scotland 12th 13th 12th 16th 11th 14th 6
 Sri Lanka 5th 6th 2nd 8th 5th 6th 7th 4th 9th 8th Q Q Q 10
 Uganda 14th 14th 2
 United Arab Emirates 12th 1
 United States 12th 15th 2
 West Indies 3rd 10th 5th 4th 2nd 8th 9th 3rd 6th 6th Q Q Q 10
 Zimbabwe 8th 11th 9th 6th 7th 14th 13th 15th 11th Q Q Q 9

Women’s Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup
Administrator International Cricket Council
Format Women’s ODI
First tournament 1973, England
Last tournament 2013, India
Current champion  Australia (6th title)
Most successful  Australia (6 titles)
Most runs Debbie Hockley (1,501)
Most wickets Lyn Fullston (39)
2013 Women’s Cricket World Cup

The ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup is the premier international championship of women’s One Day International cricket. The event is organised by the sport’s governing body, the International Cricket Council(ICC). It was originally administered by the International Women’s Cricket Council until the two associations merged in 2005. The first tournament washeld in England in 1973, two years before the first men’s tournament.

Participation in the tournament has varied through the eight competitions: fifteen different teams have played, but only Australia, England and New Zealand have appeared in every tournament. India have appeared in all but two of the competitions. Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Young Englandhave all appeared in just one tournament: in each case, the first competition, in 1973.

The most recent tournament, the 2013 Women’s Cricket World Cup, was held in India for the third time in February. In the final Australia beat West Indies by 114 runs at the Brabourne Stadium.

History[edit]

First World Cup[edit]

Women’s international cricket was first played in 1934, when a party from England toured Australia and New Zealand. The first Test match was played on 28–31 December 1934, and was won by England.[1] The first Test against New Zealand followed early the following year. These three nations remained the only Test playing teams in women’s cricket until 1960, when South Africa played a number of matches against England.[1] Limited overs cricket was first played by first-classteams in England in 1962.[2] Nine years later, the first international one day match was played in men’s cricket, whenEngland took on Australia at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.[3]

Talks began in 1971 about holding a World Cup for women’s cricket, led by Jack Hayward.[4] South Africa, under pressure from the world for their apartheid laws, were not invited to take part in the competition.[5] Both of the other two Test playing nations, Australia and New Zealand were invited. Hayward had previously organised tours of the West Indies by England women, and it was from this region that the other two competing nations were drawn; Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago. To make up the numbers, England also fielded a “Young England” team, and an “International XI” was also included.[4] Five South Africans were invited to play for the International XI as a means of compensation for the team not being invited, but these invitations were later withdrawn.[5]

The inaugural tournament was held at a variety of venues across England in June and July 1973,[6] two years before the first men’s Cricket World Cup was played.[7] The competition was played as a round-robin tournament, and the last scheduled match was England against Australia. Australia went into the game leading the table by a solitary point: they had won four matches and had one abandoned. England had also won four matches, but they had lost to New Zealand.[6][8] As a result, the match also served as a de facto final for the competition. England won the match, held at Edgbaston, Birmingham by 92 runs to win the tournament.[9]

Tournament history[edit]

List of finals[edit]

Key to list of finals
dagger The final was played as a day/night game.
double-dagger The final was decided by the Duckworth–Lewis method.
  • The “Year” column refers to the year the World Cup was held, and links to the article about that tournament.
  • The links in the “Result” column point to the article about that tournament’s final game.
  • Links in the “Winners” and “Runners-up” columns point to the articles for the national cricket teams of the countries, not the articles for the countries.
  • There were no finals in 1973 and 1978 with the top team in the round robin competition being declared winners.
List of finals, along with the host nation and location and result of the final
Year Winner Result Runner-up Final venue Host nation(s)
1982[10]  Australia
152/7 (59 overs)
Australia won by 3 wickets  England
151/5 (60 overs)
Lancaster Park, Christchurch New Zealand
1988[11]  Australia
129/2 (44.5 overs)
Australia won by 3 wickets  England
127/7 (60 overs)
Melbourne Cricket Ground,Melbourne Australia
1993[12]  England
195/5 (60 overs)
England won by 67 runs  New Zealand
128 (55.1 overs)
Lord’s, London England
1997[13]  Australia
165/5 (47.4 overs)
Australia won by 5 wickets  New Zealand
164 (49.3 overs)
Eden Gardens, Kolkata India
2000[14]  New Zealand
184 (48.4 overs)
New Zealand won by 4 runs  Australia
180 (49.1 overs)
Bert Sutcliffe Oval, Lincoln New Zealand
2005[15]  Australia
215/4 (50 overs)
Australia won by 98 runs  India
117 (46 overs)
SuperSport Park, Centurion South Africa
2009  England
167/6 (46.1 overs)
England won by 4 wickets  New Zealand
166 (47.2 overs)
North Sydney Oval, Sydney Australia
2013  Australia
259/7 (50 overs)
Australia won by 114 runs  West Indies
145 (43.1 overs)
Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai India
2017 England
2021 New Zealand

Participation[edit]

Karen Rolton won the title twice as part of the Australian team.

Team 1973 1978 1982 1988 1993 1997 2000 2005 2009 2013
 Australia 2nd 1st 1st 1st 3rd 1st 2nd 1st 4th 1st
 Denmark 8th 1R
 England 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st SF 5th SF 1st 3rd*
 India 4th 4th 4th SF SF 2nd 3rd* 7th
United Nations International XI 4th 5th
 Ireland 4th 5th QF 7th 8th
 Jamaica 6th
 Netherlands 5th 7th QF 8th
 New Zealand 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd* 2nd 2nd 1st SF 2nd 4th
 Pakistan 1R 6th 8th
 South Africa QF SF 6th 7th 6th
 Sri Lanka QF 6th 7th 8th 5th
 Trinidad and Tobago 5th
England Young England 7th
 West Indies 6th 1R 5th 5th 2nd

Note: * indicates only when there was a match exclusively played for the 3rd spot

Records[edit]

World Cup records
Batting
Most runs Debbie Hockley  New Zealand 1,501 1982–2000 [16]
Highest average (min. 10 innings) Karen Rolton  Australia 74.92 1997–2009 [17]
Highest score Belinda Clark  Australia 229 not out 1997 [18]
Highest partnership Haidee Tiffen & Suzie Bates  New Zealand 262 2009 [19]
Most runs in a tournament Debbie Hockley  New Zealand 456 1997 [20]
Bowling
Most wickets Lyn Fullston  Australia 39 1982–1988 [21]
Lowest average (min. 500 balls bowled) Katrina Keenan  New Zealand 9.72 1997–2000 [22]
Best bowling figures Jackie Lord  New Zealand 6/10 1982 [23]
Most wickets in a tournament Lyn Fullston  Australia 23 1982 [24]
Fielding
Most dismissals (wicket-keeper) Jane Smit  England 40 1993–2005 [25]
Most catches (fielder) Janette Brittin  England 19 1982–1997 [26]
Team
Highest score  Australia (v Denmark) 412/3 1997 [27]
Lowest score  Pakistan (v Australia) 27 1997 [28]
Highest win %  Australia 87.16 [29]

References

Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory voting, enforced.
Compulsory voting, not enforced.
Compulsory voting, enforced (only men).
Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men).
Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

ContentsCompulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines or community service. As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these laws in practice.

History[edit]

Athenian democracy held that it was every citizen‘s duty to participate in decision making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating. For example, Aristophanes‘s comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.[2] This usually happened if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue.

Arguments for[edit]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the ‘duties to community’ mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[3] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn’t elected into power.

Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacybecause they result in high voter turnout.[4] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[5]

Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual’s capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[5]

There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.[6]

Arguments against[edit]

Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights (free speech, right to an attorney, etc.) they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example,Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

Similarly, compulsory voting may be seen as an infringement of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of political opinion and thus the right of citizens to believe in a political system other than a democratic one, such as an absolute monarchy. However, it may also be argued that citizens may legitimately be required to vote since the right to believe in a different political system does not conflict with the obligation to conform with legal requirements of the system in place.

Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedomnot to speak.[7]

Some do not support the idea of voters being compelled to vote for candidates they have no interest in or knowledge of. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, or may have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. In compulsory voting areas, such people often vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so-called donkey vote may account for 1–2% of votes in these systems[citation needed], which may affect the electoral process. Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process or disrupt the election.

Low voter participation in a voluntary election may not be the result of political apathy. It may be simply an expression of the citizenry’s political will, indicating satisfaction with the political establishment in an electorate.[citation needed]

The Australian system of preferential voting means a person’s vote usually ends up favouring one of the two main political parties, even though the voter may not wish to advantage either. Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.[8] At the 2013 federal election, despite the threat of a non-voting fine of up to $170,[9] there was a turnout of only 92%,[10] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.[11] In the corresponding Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,[12] legitimate manipulation of the group voting tickets and single transferable vote routing resulted in the election of one senator, Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had initially received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[13] The system was accused of undermining the entitlement of voters “to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for.”[14]

By countries[edit]

Historical[edit]

  • Austria – introduced in 1924 and exercised during 1925 presidential elections
  • Chile – removed from the Constitution and replaced with voluntary voting in 2009; voluntary voting was regulated and put into practice in 2012; all eligible citizens over 17 are automatically enrolled (only those over 18 on election day may vote; although the act of voting itself is voluntary, polling officer duties are not if chosen by a commission for the job)[15]
  • Fiji – Abolished in 2014 [16]
  • Italy – Introduced in 1945, abolished in 1993.
  • Netherlands – introduced 1917 along with universal suffrage, abolished in 1967.
  • Spain – 1907–1923, but not enforced
  • US State of Georgia in 1777 (10 years before the adoption of the federal Constitution of 1787):

    Every person absenting himself from an election, and shall neglect to give in his or their ballot at such election, shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding five pounds; the mode of recovery and also the appropriation thereof, to be pointed out and directed by act of the legislature: Provided, nevertheless, That a reasonable excuse shall be admitted.

    Constitution of Georgia, 5 February 1777, Article XII [17]

This provision was omitted from the revised Georgia constitution of 1789.[citation needed]

Present day[edit]

As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (and one Swiss canton) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.[19]

Enforced[edit]

These are the 11 countries that enforce compulsory voting:

  • Argentina – Introduced in 1912.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
  • Australia – Introduced in 1924.[20] Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be ‘marked’. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.[21] At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine.[22]
  • Brazil[23] – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for Brazilian Youth age 16-17 or over 70 or illiterate citizens of any age. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
  • Cyprus – Introduced in 1960.[20]
  • Ecuador – Introduced in 1936.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg – Voluntary for those over 70.
  • Nauru – Introduced in 1965.[20]
  • Peru[24] – Introduced in 1933.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.
  • Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old on 1 January of the year of election
  • Uruguay – Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.[20]
  • Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland has compulsory voting – Introduced to Switzerland in 1904, but abolished in all other cantons by 1974.[20]

Not enforced[edit]

Countries that have compulsory voting on the law books but do not enforce it:

Measures to encourage voting[edit]

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australiaand Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (such as being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day are excused by requesting a doctor to prove their condition; those over 500 km (310 mi) away from their voting place are also excused by asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are. Belgianvoters can vote in an embassy if they are abroad or can empower another voter to cast the vote in their name; the voter must give a “permission to vote” and carry a copy of the eID card and their own on the actual elections.

States that sanction nonvoters with fines generally impose small or nominal penalties. However, penalties for failing to vote are not limited to fines and legal sanctions. Belgian voters who repeatedly fail to vote in elections may be subject todisenfranchisement. Singapore voters who fail to vote in a general election or presidential election will be subjected to disenfranchisement until a valid reason is given or a fine is paid. Goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote in Peru and Greece. In Brazil, people who fail to vote in an election are barred from obtaining a passport and subject to other restrictions until settling their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the person may be denied withdrawal of the salary from the bank for three months.[28][33]