Comentario a la Sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (Secciin 44) de 15 Enero de 2013, Asunto 'Eweida y Otros Contra Reino Unido', (Applications Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10), TEDH\2013\12 Libertad Religiosa, No Discriminaciin (Commentary on the European Court of Human Rights Decision in the Case of Eweida and Others vs the United Kingdom (Applications Nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) of 15 January 2013 Freedom of Religion and Non-discrimination)

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Palomino
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court

scholarly journals ПРАВО НА СВОБОДУ ВЕРОИСПОВЕДАНИЯ СКВОЗЬ ПРИЗМУ ПОСТСЕКУЛЯРНОЙ ПАРАДИГМЫ ЛИБЕРАЛЬНОЙ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ФИЛОСОФИИ

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 142-158
Author(s):  
Н. А. Зелінська
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

В статье рассматриваются актуальные вопросы защиты права на свободу вероиспо­ведания в контексте постсекулярной парадигмы либеральной политической философии. Исследуется эволюция практики Европейского суда по правам человека в этой сфере. Особое внимание уделено решениям по делам Lautsi and others v. Italy и Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom.   The current issues of protection of the right to the freedom of religion in the context of post-secular paradigm of liberal political philosophy are approached in the article. The author studies the evolution of the European Court of Human Rights practice in this field. Particular attention is paid to the decisions in the cases Lautsi and others v. Italy and Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom.

To Discriminate in Order to Fight Discrimination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Morondo Taramundi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Main Technique ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Paradoxical Results ◽  
Conflicts Of Rights

This chapter analyses arguments regarding conflicts of rights in the field of antidiscrimination law, which is a troublesome and less studied area of the growing literature on conflicts of rights. Through discussion of Ladele and McFarlane v. The United Kingdom, a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the chapter examines how the construction of this kind of controversy in terms of ‘competing rights’ or ‘conflicts of rights’ seems to produce paradoxical results. Assessment of these apparent difficulties leads the discussion in two different directions. On the one hand, some troubles come to light regarding the use of the conflict of rights frame itself in the field of antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to the main technique (‘balancing of rights’) to solve them. On the other hand, some serious consequences of the conflict of rights frame on the development of the antidiscrimination theory of the ECtHR are unearthed.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document