The Copenhagen principles on the handling of detainees: implications for the procedural regulation of internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

From Rio to Copenhagen: multilateral agreements, disagreements and situated actions

Governing climate change is arguably one of the most complex problems, environmental or otherwise, that the global community has had to contend with. This chapter highlights the innovations in governance that have characterized the global climate change regime as it sought to respond to and manage these complexities, political imperatives and competing interests. We suggest that the key contestations and innovations within climate governance can be understood in terms of four themes/questions all of which relate to issues of justice and equity.

The CAP and EU enlargement: Prospects for an alternative strategy to avoid the lock-in of CAP support

The integration of the central and east European countries (CEECs) into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could become a major problem. At the Copenhagen European summit in December 2002, the EU agreed a transitional period with a gradual phasing in of direct payments. However, this strategy will not solve the problems of the CAP: budgetary limits remain problematic, the policy ignores possible developments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the extension of direct payments to the CEECs will further capitalize, and hence lock-in, agricultural support. The latter makes future reform even more difficult and, to overcome these problems, we suggest an alternative strategy to integrate the CEECs into the CAP. The EU should phase out direct payments by applying a bond scheme. Finally, we consider whether this option is politically viable.