Tvaer aefisøgur útlendra merkismanna,

1. Franklíns aefi, tr. by Jón Sigurdsson.--2. Þarfur maður í sveit, by Jean Fréderic Oberlin, tr. by Olafur Palsson.

Prags Boulevard in Copenhagen : from run-down strip to boulevard

Prags Boulevard will form a 2km long pedestrian spine running east-west between the historic cities of Copenhagen and Amager. It is located on a some-what run down site, which accommodated illicit functions such as casual drug use and drinking, as well as sheds for squatters. The renovation of this site by the city of Copenhagen forms part of the Holmbladsgade renovation project, and a two-phase competition was held in 2001 to develop a green area and meeting place, transforming it into a place that residents would want to visit rather than avoid. The designer, local landscape architect Kristine Jensens recognises that though the site is linear it ‘has no traffic importance’, though as she notes ‘we like the project because it runs straight east west from the city pulse to the water of Oresund’. In developing the project, she has attempted to allow it to ‘run parallel’ to its existing illicit uses, using a ‘light touch’ of insertions. While it would be hard to describe the project as truly light in its touch (graphically, it is a very bold scheme), there is no doubt that it is parallel: in terms of use it runs alongside rather than against existing uses; in terms of its type it’s all about length, like a boulevard, although it clearly differs from a boulevard in other respects.

The road to Copenhagen: Intellectual property and climate change

In the lead-up to the discussions over IP and climate change in Copenhagen in 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that it should be the policy of US government officials in discussions over the long-term action under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change to ‘prevent any weakening of, and ensure robust compliance with and enforcement of, existing international legal requirements as of the date of the enactment of this Act for the protection of IP rights related to energy or environmental technology’.

What happened during the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen 2009?

4 p.

Carbon leakage and the future of Old Industrial Regions after Copenhagen

35 p.

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.

How to avoid Copenhagen : An experimental economic approach to climate negotiations

This study got its origin in the failed climate negotiations in the Copenhagen 2009 summit. By conducting a public good game, with participants from China and Sweden, my study indicates that previous studies on public good games can predict the outcome of the game to a quit large extent even though most of my statistical tests came out statistically insignificant. My study also indicates that by framing the game as climate negotiations there were no statistical significant difference on the level of contributions in comparison to the unframed versions of the game. The awareness of the issues with emissions, global warming and other environmental problems are pretty high but even so when push comes to shove gains in the short run are prioritized to gains in the long run. There are however hypothetical willingness to come to term with the environmental issues. The results of the study indicate that the outcome of the Copenhagen summit can be avoidable but would need additional experiments made on cultural differences and behavior.