[JURIST] While no legally binding agreement was reached at the conclusion of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) [official website] in Copenhagen, Denmark, 192 UN member countries agreed Saturday to “take note” [press release] of a non-binding Copenhagen Accord [text, PDF] developed by leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa aspiring to limit the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius and establishing a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to assist poor nations in reducing the effects of climate change [JURIST news archive]. The Accord also establishes Annexes where countries will pledge, but not be legally bound, to national targets for emission reductions by 2020. UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon [official website] emphasized [text] the importance of turning the agreement into a legally binding treaty. Ban said:

The Copenhagen Accord may not be everything that everyone hoped for. But this decision of the Conference of Parties is a new beginning, an essential beginning…We have the foundation for the first truly global agreement that will limit and reduce greenhouse gas emission, support adaptation for the most vulnerable, and launch a new era of green growth.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [decision; PDF] Friday that post-arrest detention is legal in cases where the detainees are reasonably detained. The case, Turkmen v. Ashcroft [CCR backgrounder], challenged the alleged racial profiling, arbitrary detention and abuse of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian men swept up after 9/11. This most recent ruling affirms that immigration law can be used as a pretext for detention, and that there is "no authority clearly establishing an equal protection right to be free of selective enforcement of the immigration laws based on national origin, race, or religion at the time of plaintiffs’ detentions." The Second Circuit did not dismiss claims of abuse against upper level officials, and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy website] said in a press release that

we are still seeking justice. This ruling allows us the possibility of moving forward against high-level officials, and we will. This is an important case: immigration law cannot be used as a short-cut around the Fourth Amendment.