Creating Shared Public Space in the Contested City: The Role of Urban Design

This paper examines relevant characteristics of the ‘contested city’ and the concept of ‘public space’ in that problematic context. It offers an appraisal of the historical and contemporary role of urban design in shaping social space and interrogates the feasibility of using urban design to facilitate more integrated cityscapes. It presents detailed case studies of two ‘contested cities’, Nicosia and Belfast, based on content analysis of policy and planning documents, extensive site analyses in both places, interviews and seminar discussions with policy makers, planners, community and civic leaders. The paper comprises four dimensions—conceptual, descriptive, analytical and prescriptive—and in its final section identifies core values and relevant policies for the potential achievement of shared space in contested cities.

Safeguarding children and public health: midwives' responsibilities

Using a healthy settings framework, this study aims to compare and contrast how midwives working in either hospital or community settings are currently responding to the co-occurrence of domestic and child abuse; their perceived role and willingness to identify abuse; record keeping; reporting of suspected or definite cases of child abuse; and training received. Methods: A survey questionnaire was sent to 861 hospital and community midwives throughout Northern Ireland, which resulted in 488 midwives completing the questionnaire, a 57% response rate. Comparisons were made using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation and the questionnaire was validated using exploratory factor analysis. Results: Community midwives reported receiving more training on domestic and child abuse. Although a high percentage of both hospital and community midwives acknowledged a link between domestic and child abuse, it was the community midwives who encountered more suspected and definite (p

The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.