Suchergebnisse

Peter Yates's 1968 film Bullitt cemented the reputation of its star, Steve McQueen, as "the essence of cool" – to borrow a phrase from the title of the 2005 documentary that reflects on the star's legacy. As the film reveals, however, and the documentary explores, Bullitt is fraught with narrative problems, its now iconic set-pieces seemingly purchased at the expense of coherent and accessible plot development. Meanwhile the film's formal experimentation – internally motivated by the thematic preoccupation with "noise" and freeways – heightens the ecstatic presentation of actor/protagonist as image (and of the autonomization of "style" in general), which in turn can be read as an ambivalent response to the cultural politics of the late 1960s. This paper explores the ways in which various elements of style, narrative, and cultural politics interact within the context of the film, placing Bullitt at a pivotal moment in both cinematic and cultural history. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Over the past five years there have been a series of significant international climate change agreements involving only elite state actors. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, APEC Sydney Leaders Declaration and US Major Economies Process all displayed a shift towards a model of international climate change governance involving a small group of economically powerful states, to the exclusion of less powerful states and environmental NGOs. The modest result from the UNFCCC COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 and subsequent UNFCCC meetings has strengthened calls for international climate governance to be pared down to smaller decision making forums of key states only. This article argues that these developments evidence an emerging discourse of 'exclusive minilateralism' in international climate policy that is challenging the inclusive multilateral discourse that has formed the bedrock of international climate change governance since the inception of UN climate regime in the early 1990s. The exclusive minilateralism discourse offers a significant challenge to both the cosmopolitan and discursive democratic aspirations of international climate change governance. One response to the exclusive minilateral discourse is to reform the UNFCCC consensus-based decision making rule to provide the COP with greater ease of decision making on key issues relating to mitigation and adaptation. Another response is to more formally include the exclusive minilateralism discourse within the UNFCCC COP process. This could be achieved by forming a small peak body of states and key NGO groups to act as an influential advisor to the COP process on key issues requiring expedition and resolution.

Over the past five years there have been a series of significant international climate change agreements involving only elite state actors. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, APEC Sydney Leaders Declaration and US Major Economies Process all displayed a shift towards a model of international climate change governance involving a small group of economically powerful states, to the exclusion of less powerful states and environmental NGOs. The modest result from the UNFCCC COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 and subsequent UNFCCC meetings has strengthened calls for international climate governance to be pared down to smaller decision making forums of key states only. This article argues that these developments evidence an emerging discourse of 'exclusive minilateralism' in international climate policy that is challenging the inclusive multilateral discourse that has formed the bedrock of international climate change governance since the inception of UN climate regime in the early 1990s. The exclusive minilateralism discourse offers a significant challenge to both the cosmopolitan and discursive democratic aspirations of international climate change governance. One response to the exclusive minilateral discourse is to reform the UNFCCC consensus-based decision making rule to provide the COP with greater ease of decision making on key issues relating to mitigation and adaptation. Another response is to more formally include the exclusive minilateralism discourse within the UNFCCC COP process. This could be achieved by forming a small peak body of states and key NGO groups to act as an influential advisor to the COP process on key issues requiring expedition and resolution.

Since the formation of the US and Australian sponsored Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) in 2005, there has been a series of international climate change agreements involving elite state actors only. The APEC Sydney Leaders Declaration of 2007, G8 Hokkaido Leaders Declaration of 2008 and US Bush Administration Major Economies Meetings (MEM) of 2007-08 all display a shift towards a model of international climate governance based on small groups of economically powerful states, to the exclusion of less powerful states and civil society. The role of some developing countries at the recent Copenhagen COP 15 meeting, together with logistical difficulties in civil society participation at that meeting, have strengthened calls for international climate governance to be pared down to a smaller decision making forum involving only 'key' countries in terms of emissions and economic output. This paper seeks to explain the above developments by an interpretivist research design based on international legal analysis and critical constructivist discourse analysis. It is argued that the above developments embody a discourse of 'exclusive mini-lateralism' that represents an important discursive challenge to the 'inclusive multilateral' design that has dominated international climate change governance since the formation of the UNFCCC in 1992. The exclusive mini-lateralist discourse seeks to shift inter-subjective meaning underlying the processes of international climate governance away from openness, transparency and accountability towards an acceptance of secrecy and power-based outcomes that will allegedly provide greater global effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Any continued strengthening of the exclusive mini-lateralist discourse will provide a significant challenge to the deliberative potential of international climate change governance over coming years.

This Note argues that the "public accommodations" provision of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the Internet. A broad reading of the public accommodation clause in Title III in conjunction with the supporting case law and the statute's legislative history suggests that public accommodations are not limited to physical structures. Therefore, Internet companies that do not provide software compatible with the technology that visually disabled people use to access the Internet are liable for violating the ADA. The Note concludes with a summary of the first litigation on this issue between the National Federation of the Blind and America Online which was settled in July of 2000.