The Crucifix Dispute and Value Pluralism

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-320
Author(s):  
Beata Polanowska-Sygulska
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Value Pluralism ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Isaiah Berlin ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ethical Monism

Abstract This article seeks to interpret the striking divergence between the two judgments passed by the European Court of Human Rights in the Lautsi v Italy case in terms of value pluralism. The latter is a hotly debated position in ethics, brought to life in the second half of the twentieth century by Isaiah Berlin. Pluralism elucidates these in interesting ways. First, value pluralism sheds light on three major aspects of the trial before the European Court of Human Rights: the nature of the collision of values, the discrepancy between the two decisions, and the rationale of the final judgment. Secondly, this is my thesis that while the first judgment fits ethical monism, which underlies Dworkin’s ‘one right answer’ theory, the second ruling chimes with pluralism. The pluralist spirit of the Grand Chamber’s final decision turned Europe away from the path of Americanization.

An Old Judge Remembers

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Lagergren ◽  
George H. Aldrich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Hague

Gunnar Lagergren has performed many notable functions in the course of the twentieth century, most of which resulted in significant contributions to international law and, in particular, to the settlement of international disputes. As an arbitrator, he handled a number of important cases, including that between India and Pakistan concerning the Rann of Kutch and the Taba boundary arbitration between Egypt and Israel. He served with distinction on a number of important tribunals, including the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague, where he was its first President.

scholarly journals JURI SAYS: An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masha Medvedeva ◽  
Xiao Xu ◽  
Martijn Wieling ◽  
Michel Vols
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Prediction System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Web Platform ◽  
The Web

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights).

OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 474-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric De Brabandere
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Russian Company ◽  
European Court ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One

On July 31, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered its final decision on a claim brought by the liquidated Russian company OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (Yukos) against the Russian Federation (Russia), a decision that is the last in a series of three decisions in this case relating respectively to the admissibility of the application, the merits, and just satisfaction.A couple weeks prior to the ECtHR’s decision, three arbitral tribunals established under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and functioning under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules had issued their final awards based on claims brought by three former shareholders of Yukos under the Energy Charter Treaty. The dispute, while brought by the shareholders of Yukos, in essence is the same as the one brought by Yukos against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals Biomedicine issues in the European Court of Human Rights Case-Law: Boljević v. Serbia

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-163
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Bukuru
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Biological Father ◽  
Dna Test ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private And Public

The article considers the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in cases related to the use of the achievements of biomedicine in the light of the implementation of human rights and freedoms provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols. In fact, the author pays special attention to the case of Boljević v. Serbia , in which the applicant, a Serbian citizen, alleged that his right to respect for private and family life had been violated as a result of the refusal of the Serbian national courts to reopen paternity proceedings, in which the applicant intended to prove, through DNA testing, that Mr. A was his biological father. It has to be mentioned that in this case in the 1970s the Serbian national courts issued final decision according to which Mr. A was not recognized as the applicant's biological father, and the applicant indicated that at that time it was impossible to carry out DNA test and he did not know about the existence of such decision (during the proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by local authorities, since he was a minor), and that now there is such a possibility. In this connection, the applicant argued that the denial to satisfy his claims on procedural basis by the domestic courts violated his right to family and private life. The ECtHR ruled that Art. 8 of the Convention has been violated. In that case, the issues of compliance with a balance of private and public interests were dealt with (the interests of the applicant to establish his biological father identity and the interests of the state in maintaining legal certainty).

Too Much Secularism? Religious Freedom in European History and the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 95-124
Author(s):  
Samuel Moyn
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
European History ◽  
European Court ◽  
Looking Back

This chapter reinterprets contemporary European Court of Human Rights religious freedom jurisprudence in historical perspective, arguing that the decisions upholding headscarf and related bans do not flow from principles that have been connected to an exclusionary secularism for long. Looking back to early modern origins, the chapter first shows that it is mistaken to assume a long-term alliance between religious freedom and ‘secularism’. The chapter then turns to a closer analysis of the 1940s, when religious freedom was internationalized. As in its earliest origins, so also in its mid-twentieth century iteration, religious freedom was not part of a secularist enterprise. On the contrary, religious freedom was historically a principle that was most often intended to marginalize secularism. The Muslim of contemporary jurisprudence has taken the place of the communist.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document