Human rights in Europe

Legal Studies ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-181
Author(s):  
Henry G. Schemers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
Government Interference ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Western European ◽  
The Government

Through the ages many common legal values have developed in western Europe. Notwithstanding the differences in legal systems there is a remarkable uniformity in the basic concepts of legal thinking. All western European states are democracies with constitutional restrictions to the power of the government. They all have similar defences against absolutism and one of these defences is the protection of fundamental human rights against government interference. The existence of such legal restrictions is a distinguishing feature of western European politico-legal development.

Autocratic Government Moderates the Relationship Between Culture and Legal Restriction

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (9) ◽  
pp. 1457-1463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linus Chan ◽  
Lucian Gideon Conway
Keyword(s):  
Legal Systems ◽  
Interactive Model ◽  
Higher Power ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
Legal Restriction ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Relationship

Laws that restrict citizens exist in every form of government. Although previous research has shown that legal restriction is tied to culture-level variables such as collectivism, we propose and test a novel interactive model specifying that the culture-legal restriction relationship will depend on the level of democracy or autocracy present in the government. Specifically, legal restrictions in democracies should show more consistent relationships with culture-level variables because lawmakers in democracies are more directly accountable to the populace. In contrast, legal restrictions in autocracies should be less subject to influence by culture-level variables because lawmakers are less directly accountable to the populace. In our study, we tested this interactive model by examining if horizontal/vertical legal restrictions predict culture-level variables (wealth, urbanity, collectivism) differently for democracies versus autocracies. Results provide qualified support for the model: Especially for higher power tests with larger samples of nations, we found that the level of democracy/autocracy significantly moderated the relationship between culture-level variables and two different types of legal restriction. Also consistent with our model, the nature of these interactions generally revealed significant culture-legal restriction effects for democracies but not autocracies. Our results suggest that the path between culture and legal systems might take very different routes depending on level of autocracy or democracy in the ruling government.

Autocracy

2020 ◽  
pp. 315-318
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Rowland
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Total Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Structure ◽  
Peter The Great ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Western European ◽  
The Government

This chapter looks at autocracy as the concept most widely used to describe the political culture of the Russian state before 1917. It explains how autocracy, understood as the unlimited rule of the monarch over his subjects, is often taken as the signature characteristic of Russian political culture in general. It also identifies historians that see the political structure of Russia as essentially oligarchical, with power shared in a mutually beneficial way among various layers of the nobility and the government. The chapter presents autocracy in the relatively stable political culture from 1450 to 1650 and discusses the changes wrought in that culture by massive influences from Western Europe under Peter the Great and his immediate predecessors. It considers the accounts of Western European visitors to Russia from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, which was responsible for the trope of total power of the Russian ruler over its subjects.

scholarly journals Human rights in the context of gender and juvenile policy in different legal systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (38) ◽  
pp. 138-147
Author(s):  
Boris Perezhniak ◽  
Olga Melnychuk ◽  
Mykola Matiiko ◽  
Hanna Kotyk ◽  
Nargis Mokhd
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Government ◽  
High Degree

The study aims to identify the features of gender and juvenile policy in different legal systems and the formation of women's and children's rights. At present, equal rights are one of the main tasks of the modern social and legal state, as equality of rights and non-discrimination have been proclaimed by many constitutions and enshrined at the international level. The implementation of an effective gender and juvenile policy will increase the state's reputation in the international arena and ensure a high degree of trust in the government. Given the differences in the development of this aspect of countries from different legal systems, the analysis of the specifics of ensuring rights within gender and juvenile policy will further improve existing ways of regulating gender and juvenile relations by borrowing the main promising ideas and provisions underlying public policy. To conduct a research the authors used different scientific methods. Among these methods are the analysis and synthesis, the formal-legal and the comparative law method. The result of this work is to identify specific features characteristic of gender and juvenile policy of different legal systems, determine the importance of human rights and non-discrimination, offer effective ways to improve the implementation of gender and juvenile policy on the example of progressive states.

Interview with Omar Shakir

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Noura Erakat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Rutgers University ◽  
Human Rights Advocacy ◽  
University Professor ◽  
The Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

In late November 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Interior's order to deport Human Rights Watch (HRW) director for Israel and Palestine, Omar Shakir. The court based its decision on a 2017 amendment to Israel's 1952 Entry into Israel Law enabling the government to refuse entry to foreigners who allegedly advocate for the boycott of Israel. The same law was invoked to deny entry to U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the summer of 2019. The campaign against Shakir began almost immediately after he was hired by HRW in 2016, and the court's decision marked the culmination of a multi-year battle against the deportation order. In this interview, JPS Editorial Committee member, Rutgers University professor, and author Noura Erakat discusses the details of his case with Shakir in an exchange that also examines the implications of the case for human rights advocacy, in general, and for Palestinians, in particular. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

The Emancipation of Europe's Muslims

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Laurence
Keyword(s):  
Trade Unions ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Critical Junctures ◽  
Muslim Immigrants ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Muslim Communities ◽  
Integration Problems ◽  
Muslim Minorities

This book traces how governments across Western Europe have responded to the growing presence of Muslim immigrants in their countries over the past fifty years. Drawing on hundreds of in-depth interviews with government officials and religious leaders in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Morocco, and Turkey, the book challenges the widespread notion that Europe's Muslim minorities represent a threat to liberal democracy. The book documents how European governments in the 1970s and 1980s excluded Islam from domestic institutions, instead inviting foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Turkey to oversee the practice of Islam among immigrants in European host societies. But since the 1990s, amid rising integration problems and fears about terrorism, governments have aggressively stepped up efforts to reach out to their Muslim communities and incorporate them into the institutional, political, and cultural fabrics of European democracy. The book places these efforts—particularly the government-led creation of Islamic councils—within a broader theoretical context and gleans insights from government interactions with groups such as trade unions and Jewish communities at previous critical junctures in European state-building. By examining how state–mosque relations in Europe are linked to the ongoing struggle for religious and political authority in the Muslim-majority world, the book sheds light on the geopolitical implications of a religious minority's transition from outsiders to citizens. This book offers a much-needed reassessment that foresees the continuing integration of Muslims into European civil society and politics in the coming decades.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Constitutional and Legal Restrictions in the European Union Countries in the Context of the COVID 19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document