scholarly journals The sense of the right to religious freedom in liberal democracies between accommodation and laicization. A study of the North American and Brazilian cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Leonardo Copetti Santos ◽  
Doglas Cesar Lucas
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
State Legislation ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The North ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
The Right ◽  
Initial Results

AbstractThis work intends to investigate the different conceptions—accommodation and laicization—that underlie processes of legislative regulation and judicial decision in matters of conflicts involving the right to religious freedom, in the legal systems of North America and Brazil. We will also investigate the potential for harmonization of legal in conflicts with other fundamental rights. The objective here is to build possibilities in order to establish a synthesis meaning for the right of religious freedom, in accordance with the democratic constitutional models of law to begin with, the recent modulations which allowed the fundamental right to religious freedom, especially from the edition of some US federal and state legislation, as well as from a set of decisions taken by Brazilian courts. As a corollary of these modulations, the article intends to assess the consequences that these new laws and judicial decisions caused in the legal system, through social andinstitutional democratic practices related to any fundamental rights. We used the dialectical method, since the idea and the foundation of the right to religious freedom follow a three-stage approach: thesis (religious freedom in its original sense and secularized conception), antithesis (right to religious freedom as a possibility to act in the exercise of belief, by claiming accommodation with other rights), and synthesis (the perspective to elaborate a proper sense to liberal democracies). Initial results indicate that both models based on secularization and accommodation can generate democratic and undemocratic meanings to the right of religious freedom; both models can either harmonize conflicting rights or escalate social antagonisms.

G.L. v. Italy

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 441-447
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Wide Margin ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Fair Balance

An interference with property under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued. In determining whether this requirement is met, the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question. The Italian system of staggering of the enforcement of court orders of evictions is not in itself open to criticism, having regard in particular to the margin of appreciation permitted. However, such a system carries with it the risk of imposing on landlords an excessive burden in terms of their ability to dispose of their property and must accordingly provide certain procedural safeguards so as to ensure that the operation of the system and its impact on a landlord's property rights are neither arbitrary nor unforeseeable. In this case, the landlord had to wait six years and could not apply to a judge for either enforcement or compensation for the delay. Moreover, the right to a court also protects the implementation of final, binding judicial decisions, which cannot remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Accordingly, the execution of a judicial decision cannot be unduly delayed. While States may, in exceptional circumstances and by availing themselves of their margin of appreciation to control the use of property, intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision, the consequence of such intervention should not be that execution is prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed or, still less, that the substance of the decision is undermined.

scholarly journals Perspectiva constitucional de las garantías de aplicación de la Inteligencia Artificial: la ineludible protección de los derechos fundamentales.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-82
Author(s):  
Jorge Castellanos Claramunt ◽  
María Dolores Montero Caro
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

Artificial Intelligence has an undeniable effect on today’s society, so its study regarding its legal effects becomes necessary. And consequently, how fundamental rights are affected is of particular importance. Hence, the present paper studies the influence of algorithms in determining judicial decisions, especially from the point of view of how this issue would affect the right to effective judicial protection, recognized as a fundamental right in article 24 of the Spanish Constitution.

scholarly journals Concept of right to life and its protection under the Constitution of India

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-68
Author(s):  
HARSH PATHAK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
The Right

The constitution and jurist characterized Article 21 as, “the procedural magna carta, protective of life and liberty”. This right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in Indian constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of it. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e). Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. There would have been no fundamental rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

Antonetto v. Italy

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 403-408
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Fair Balance

The right to a court would be illusory if the internal legal order of a State permitted a definitive and obligatory judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of a party. The execution of a judgment or decision is an integral part of the case. The effective protection of justice and the re-establishment of legality require the administration to comply with a decision pronounced by a supreme administrative tribunal. Moreover, the necessity to search for a fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the imperative to safeguard the fundamental right of the individual to respect for property must be based on the interference in question respecting the principle of legality and not being arbitrary. The refusal of national authorities to execute a judicial decisions on no legal basis excuses a need to determine a fair balance.

scholarly journals O Direito Fundamental à Liberdade Religiosa de Crianças e Adolescentes / The Fundamenal Right to Religious Freedom for children and Adolescents

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-224
Author(s):  
Alan Felipe Provin ◽  
Audrey Pongan Borteze
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

O presente artigo objetiva a análise do direito à liberdade religiosa de crianças e adolescentes, tendo em vista que este é consagrado com um dos direitos fundamentais previstos na Constituição Federal de 1988. A pesquisa possui como problemática o questionamento acerca da possibilidade de atribuir o fundamento da liberdade de convicção religiosa às crianças e adolescentes, ainda que em conflito com o direito à vida, considerando a incapacidade civil dos menores. Ademais, analisa também os direitos constitucionais e princípios aplicados aos menores à luz da doutrina da proteção integral, bem como expõe o conflito entre direitos fundamentais e aborda as posições dos Tribunais quanto ao tema. Em termo de metodologia, utilizou-se a pesquisa qualitativa, indutiva e bibliográfica. Ao final dos estudos, concluiu-se que, em que pese o direito à vida e a liberdade religiosa serem direitos fundamentais, com hierarquia idêntica, há casos em que é permitida a relativização de um direito em prol do outro, devendo ser analisado cada caso em concreto.   Abstract: This article aims to analyze the right to religious freedom of children and adolescents, given that this is enshrined as one of the fundamental rights provided in the Federal Constitution of 1988. The research has as problematic the possibility of attributing the foundation of religious´ freedom to the children and adolescents, although in conflict with the right to life, considering the civil incapacity of the minors. In addition, it also analyzes the constitutional rights and principles applied to minors in the light of the doctrine of integral protection, as well as exposes the conflict between fundamental rights and addresses the positions of the Courts on the subject. In terms of methodology, we used the qualitative, inductive and bibliographic research. At the end of the studies, it was concluded that, in spite of the fact that the right to life and religious freedom are fundamental rights, with a similar hierarchy, there are cases where the relativization of one right is allowed for the other, and each case must be analyzed in particular.

scholarly journals Direito Fundamental a uma nacionalidade

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (33) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Leila Arruda Cavallieri
Keyword(s):  
Family Life ◽  
International Adoption ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Transnational Law ◽  
Great Achievement ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Italian Legislation

Os direitos fundamentais são a base da garantia do exercício pleno da dignidade humana.A salvaguarda desses direitos pelo país é um dever que não pode ser relegado ou olvidado. Desta forma, existem mecanismos que compelem o Estado a proteger, defender e cobrar respeito pelos mesmospor parte da sociedade e de outros Estados. No caso da adoção internacional, o direito à convivência familiar é conquistado pelos adotandos a partir da sentença judicial brasileira. Porém, ao se tornarem filhos de pais domiciliados em outro Estado, as crianças e adolescentes aqui nascidos precisam ter as garantias que são atinentes ao status de cidadão daquele país. A partir do reconhecimento do direito à nacionalidade pelo país de acolhida das crianças, elas passam a usufruir de uma condição de equiparação a seus adotantes, do ponto de vista de direitos e deveres. A nacionalidade ou cidadania para os adotandos é um direito fundamental que necessita ser conquistado e preservado, através das normativas internas ou de direito convencional, visando atender ao superior interesse da criança ou adolescente. A legislação italiana é uma das legislações estrangeiras que possui tais dispositivos, o que se torna uma grande conquista no direito transnacional. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: direitos fundamentais; adoção internacional; direito à convivência familiar; direito à nacionalidade   Abstract Fundamental rights are the basis for ensuring the full exercise of human dignity. The safeguarding of these rights by the country is a duty that can not be relegated or forgotten. Thus, there are mechanisms that compel the State to protect, defend and claim respect for them by society and other States. In the case of international adoption, the right to family coexistence is won by adoptees based on the Brazilian judicial decision. However, when they become children of parents domiciled in another State, the children and adolescents here born need to have the guarantees that are pertinent to the status of citizen of that country. From the recognition of the right to nationality by the host country of the children, they will enjoy a condition of equality with their adopters, from the point of view of rights and duties. Nationality or citizenship for adopte is a fundamental right that needs to be won and preserved, through internal norms or conventional law, in order to meet the superior interest of the child or adolescent. The Italian legislation is one of the foreign laws that have such devices, which becomes a great achievement in transnational law. KEYWORDS: fundamental rights; international adoption; right to family life; right to nationality

scholarly journals Direito a liberdade religiosa e o direito à saúde: principais conflitos

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (29) ◽  
pp. 58-63
Author(s):  
Leisson Domingues Pinheiro ◽  
Maurícia Macedo Ramalho ◽  
Lillian Sorany Costa do Nascimento ◽  
Messias Francisco Silva ◽  
Edson Yuzur Yasojima
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Religion And Health ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
The Right

Realizar um levantamento dos principais fatores que contribuem para os conflitos entre o direito à liberdade religiosa e o direito a saúde, e enumerar qual o princípio constitucional prevalece frente a esses casos. A pesquisa foi desenvolvida através da revisão de literatura dos últimos cinco anos nas bases online: SCIELO, LILACS e PUBMED. Foram utilizadas as palavras chaves: conflitos entre direito a religião e a saúde; direito a saúde; direito à liberdade religiosa. Foram encontrados 157 artigos nas bases de dados online com os descritores citados acima. Estavam relacionados a 24 artigos com a pesquisa.  Observa-se que dos 24 artigos analisados, 14 mencionam como principal causa de conflito a colisão de direitos fundamentais, seguido por 05 artigos que relacionam esses conflitos com a transfusão sanguínea. Dentre os princípios mais utilizados na solução desses conflitos foram: o princípio da liberdade, o princípio autonomia e o princípio da beneficência. Destes, 45,8% dos autores relatam o princípio da autonomia e liberdade. O paciente deve receber todas as informações necessárias e opções de tratamentos alternativos, além de ter consciência para a tomada da decisão. E em caso de urgência o que prevalece é o direito à vida, ou seja, cabe ao médico definir a conduta a ser tomada, aplicando assim o princípio da beneficência.Descritores: Religião, Liberdade, Saúde Pública. Right of religious freedom and the right to health: major conflictsAbstract: To carry out a survey of the main factors that contribute to these conflicts between the right to religious freedom and the right to health, and to enumerate which constitutional principle prevails against such cases. The research will be developed through a literature review of the SCIELO, LILACS e PUBMED. The key words will be used: conflicts between the right to religion and health; right to health; right to religious freedom. We found 157 articles in the online databases with the descriptors cited above. They were related to 24 articles with the research. It is observed that of the 24 analyzed articles, 14 mentions as main cause of conflict the collision of fundamental rights, followed by 05 articles that relates these conflicts with the blood transfusion. Among the principles most used in solving these conflicts were: the principle of freedom, the principle of autonomy and the principle of beneficence. Of these, 45.8% of the authors report the principle of autonomy and freedom. The patient should receive all the necessary information and alternative treatment options, besides being aware of the decision. And in case of urgency what prevails is the right to life, that is, it is up to the doctor to define the conduct to be taken, thus applying the principle of beneficence.Descriptors: Religion, Freedom, Public Health. Derecho a la libertad religiosa y el derecho a la salud: principales conflictosResumen: Realizar una encuesta de los principales factores que contribuyen a estos conflictos entre el derecho a la libertad religiosa y el derecho a la salud, y enumerar cuál principio constitucional prevalece en tales casos. La investigación se desarrollará a través de una revisión bibliográfica de SCIELO, LILACS y PUBMED. Se utilizaran las palabras clave: conflictos entre el derecho a la religión y la salud; derecho a la salud; derecho a la libertad religiosa. Encontramos 157 artículos en las bases de datos en línea con los descriptores citados anteriormente y se relacionaron con 24 artículos con la investigación. Se observa que, de los 24 artículos analizados, 14 mencionan como principal causa de conflicto la colisión de derechos fundamentales, seguidos por 05 artículos que relacionan estos conflictos con la transfusión de sangre. Entre los principios más utilizados para resolver estos conflictos se encuentran: el principio de libertad, el principio de autonomía y el principio de beneficencia. De estos, el 45,8% de los autores reportan el principio de autonomía y libertad. El paciente debe recibir toda la información necesaria y opciones alternativas de tratamiento, además de conocer la decisión. Y en caso de urgencia, lo que prevalece es el derecho a la vida, es decir, le corresponde al médico definir la conducta que se debe tomar, aplicando así el principio de beneficencia.Descriptores: Religión, Libertad, Salud Pública.

Religious Freedom, the Minority Question, and Geopolitics in the Middle East

2012 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 418-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saba Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
International Laws ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
The Right ◽  
Strong Concern

The right to religious freedom is widely regarded as a crowning achievement of secular-liberal democracies, one that guarantees the peaceful coexistence of religiously diverse populations. Enshrined in national constitutions and international laws and treaties, the right to religious liberty promises to ensure two stable goods: (1) the ability to choose one's religion freely without coercion by the state, church, or other institutions; and (2) the creation of a polity in which one's economic, civil, legal, or political status is unaffected by one's religious beliefs. While all members of a polity are supposed to be protected by this right, modern wisdom has it that religious minorities are its greatest beneficiaries and their ability to practice their traditions without fear of discrimination is a critical marker of a tolerant and civilized polity. The right to religious freedom marks an important distinction between liberal secularism and the kind practiced in authoritarian states (such as China, Syria, or the former Soviet Union): while the latter abide by the separation of religion and state (a central principle of political secularism), they also regularly abrogate religious freedoms of their minority and majority populations. Despite claims to religious neutrality, liberal secular states frequently regulate religious affairs but they do so in accord with a strong concern for protecting the individual's right to practice his or her religion freely, without coercion or state intervention.

Case Comment: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: The Indian Supreme Court’s Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-233
Author(s):  
Gautam Bhatia
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
High Court ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar, delivered in September 2018, decriminalizing same-sex relations in India, generated a storm of discussion and debate, in both India and in the world beyond. Apart from its clear and sharp verdict that held that the Indian Constitution protected the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, the decision was also noteworthy because it reversed the Court’s own prior judgment, delivered a mere five years before (in 2013), that had upheld the constitutional validity of the law that penalized same-sex relations. In this case comment, we set out the chronology of judicial decisions that led to the final judgment in Navtej Singh Johar: the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in 2009, which first decriminalized same-sex relations, the 2013 judgment of the Indian Supreme Court that reversed it, and the various judicial proceedings that continued to rumble on in the Court—an additional round known as the ‘curative hearing’, and separate litigation on the constitutional status of the right to privacy. Within this context, the paper then discusses the multiple opinions that were delivered by the Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, and examines the reasons on the basis of which the Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code—insofar as it criminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults—violated the fundamental rights to equality, nondiscrimination, freedom of expression, and life and personal liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The article will conclude by setting out some possibilities for the way forward, in light of the judgment.

Enforcement of Fatwas in Bangladesh and the Violation of Constitutionally Guaranteed Fundamental Rights of Others: Compromising Between Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-171
Author(s):  
Md Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan
Keyword(s):  
Religious Belief ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Religious Community ◽  
The Right

Each religious community is entitled to enjoy its religious freedom, and members of every community have the right to manifest, profess, and practice their religion. Fatwas are manifestations of religious belief. In Bangladesh, extra-judicial penalties in the form of lashings or beatings may be carried out in the name of fatwas. Consequently, fatwas as manifestations of religion may come into conflict with the rights of others. Questions then arise whether fatwas as manifestations of religion can be restricted, in what conditions, and by whom. This article will examine these questions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document