scholarly journals Current Problems of the Realization of the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religious Вeliefs by Christians in Western European States

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-35
Author(s):  
Наталия Сергеевна Семенова

На сегодняшний день сформирована солидная правовая база международных обязательств государств по гарантии права на свободу мысли, совести и религии. Соблюдение данных гарантий обеспечивается на международном уровне наличием разработанной системы уставных и договорных контрольных механизмов, в рамках которых государства отчитываются о выполнении своих обязательств. Тем не менее, несмотря на наличие хорошо разработанной международно-правовой системы защиты права на свободу мысли, совести и религии, проблемы реализации данного права, включая преследования и дискриминацию по признаку отношения к религии, остро стоят во многих странах Западной Европы. Причем, проблемы реализации права на свободу совести и вероисповедания возникают, как правило, у последователей Христианства - культурообразующей религии большинства государств Западной Европы. В статье рассмотрены основные проблемы и причины дискриминации христиан в Западной Европе. Приведены примеры практики национальных судов и Европейского суда по правам человека в области дискриминации христиан в западноевропейских государствах. Проанализированы последствия «политики толерантности», продвигаемой странами Западной Европы на международном уровне как основной «ценности» демократического общества, во взаимосвязи с дискриминацией христиан. To date, a solid legal base of the international obligations of states has been formed to guarantee the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Compliance with these guarantees is ensured at the international level by the existence of a developed system of statutory and contractual control mechanisms, within which states report on the fulfillment of their obligations. Nevertheless, despite the existence of a well-developed international legal system for protecting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the problems of the realization of this right, including persecution and discrimination based on religion, are acute in many countries of Western Europe. Moreover, the problems of the realization of the right to freedom of conscience and religion arise, as a rule, among the followers of Christianity, the culture-forming religion of most states of Western Europe. The article discusses the main problems and causes of discrimination against Christians in Western Europe. It contains examples of the practice of national courts and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of discrimination against Christians in Western European countries are given. The consequences of the «policy of tolerance» promoted by the countries of Western Europe at the international level as the main «value» of a democratic society, in connection with discrimination against Christians, are analyzed.

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (41) ◽  
pp. 44-58
Author(s):  
Dariia Melnykova

Abstract The right to freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental natural right, which is enshrined in international legal acts and acts of national legislation. At the same time, the different regulation of the mentioned right in distinct acts attracts attention. Variations include the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, “the right to freedom of conscience and confession” etc. This article analyzes all cases of terminological regulation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion. The content of each of the categories is analyzed, due to which the concept of the right to freedom of conscience and religion is defined and a clear distinction is made between each of the categories. Along with this, the interaction of the content and the concept of the right to freedom of conscience and religion is established. Based on the research conducted within the article, the most successful concept for expressing the content of the right to freedom of conscience and religion is determined. The article also analyzes the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the vision of the content and concept of the right to freedom of conscience and religion.


Author(s):  
Shai Dothan

There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.


Author(s):  
Frank Cranmer

Abstract The United Kingdom is bound by international obligations to uphold ‘the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ and domestic legislation reflects those obligations. The courts have held that to be protected, a belief must genuine, must not be a mere opinion, must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness and importance and must be ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’. How this plays out, however, in areas such as education, children’s rights and employment is highly sensitive to the specific facts of each case – which are often inconsistent, as the article explains. Much of the article examines the decisions of the courts in individual cases. It concludes with a discussion of the possible trajectory of domestic political debate at a time when there have been repeated calls for a ‘British Bill of Rights’ and the Westminster Government is questioning more generally the constitutional role of the judiciary.


Author(s):  
Dominic McGoldrick

This chapter discusses the sources, scope, and limitations of the four fundamental freedoms: thought, expression, association, and assembly. Freedom of thought includes freedom of conscience, religion, and belief. Freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion and freedom of information. Freedom of association concerns the right to establish autonomous organizations through which individuals pursue common interests together. The right of assembly protects non-violent, organized, temporary gatherings in public and private, both indoors and outdoors.


Author(s):  
Noam Gidron

Abstract Mainstream parties in Western Europe are increasingly struggling to hold together their base of support. As a lens for exploring this changing electoral landscape, this article focuses on the growing share of the electorate that is cross-pressured between conservative and progressive attitudes on economic and cultural issues. It argues that a stable asymmetry characterizes Western European mass attitudes: while support for the left is common among voters with progressive attitudes on both issues, it is enough to be conservative on one issue to turn right. Analyzing survey data collected from 1990 to 2017, the study shows that cross-pressures are resolved in favor of the right and examines the trade-offs this poses to center-right parties. These findings contribute to debates on electoral dealignment and realignment and shed light on the electoral choices of the center-right.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Mawhinney

Abstract The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is not a constant. As human rights law has progressively acquired a conceptual status as a means of reconciling tensions, the substantive legal content of the right to freedom to manifest religion or belief has widened. This paper argues that the admittance of claims of religious morality within this expanded understanding of the right exposes the conceptual imprecision underlying the right and presents a complex challenge to human rights supervisory bodies to address such claims without undermining their founding objectives. The first part of the paper traces the historical treatment of the right to freedom of religion or belief as a means of understanding its evolving and multifaceted nature. Part II draws on this overview to develop a taxonomy of aspects of the right and, in particular, it suggests that claims of religious morality ought to be viewed and treated as a distinct facet. The final part of the paper examines a group of recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights to explore current judicial responses to such claims and considers the risks posed by claims of religious morality for the contemporary right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.


Global Jurist ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Galliani

AbstractLife Imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract the attention of the doctrine. There are, however, significant developments in the European Court of Human Rights case law. In this paper, using a comparative methodology, we highlight the standard that, at international level, allows to consider Life Imprisonment compatible with human dignity-that is the right to a substantial judicial review. It is no longer acceptable that the ‘last word’ on the lifers’ early release is still entrusted to political power.


Author(s):  
Anastasia A. Isaeva ◽  

In this study, the author addresses the problem of the definition and structure of the right to religious autonomy. The object of the study was the content of the two manifestations of this right that the author identified: internal governance and doctrinal autonomy in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of this article is to determine the main areas of protection of the right to religious autonomy of religious associations and the positive experience applicable in the Russian Federation. The author describes the role of the right to religious autonomy, which is an integral part of pluralism in a democratic society and, therefore, acts as a center for protection provided by freedom of conscience. The study is based on the theoretical material of the works of both Russian (P.V. Sergeev, Yu.E. Fedotova, M.O. Shakhov) and foreign (M.E. Chopko, M.F. Moses) researchers. The extensive law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the regulations of the European Union are also used. The methodological basis of the study is dialectical, comparative legal, formal legal, and other methods. In particular, the use of the dialectical method helped to determine the content of the concept of the right to religious autonomy, to study the dynamics of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding a “balanced approach” to protect the autonomy of the internal management of religious associations. The use of comparative legal and formal legal methods helped to identify correlations between the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and acts adopted within the European Union. The use of the functional method made it possible to investigate the place and role of European institutions and the nature of their governing influence on the provision and protection of the right to religious autonomy to various religious associations, including those representing a religious minority. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that religious autonomy in its two possible manifestations—internal governance and doctrinal autonomy—directly follows from the content of the powers of freedom of conscience. Both of the manifestations are protected by European regulations although such protection cannot be considered as absolute. On the one hand, the right to religious autonomy is an integral part of the external manifestation of religious beliefs; on the other, its universal protection will jeopardize the protection of the rights of others. Nevertheless, in a situation in which the governing influence of European states is limited and the enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights is not entirely consistent, it seems that European institutions are aware of the importance of the right to religious autonomy. Therefore, the authorities resolve problems associated with its implementation pragmatically, trying to balance it with other rights and legitimate interests.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104-111
Author(s):  
N. I. Skoropysova

The article discusses the key issues of the interpretation of the concept of “defamation” in the countries of Western Europe. In a modern social and legal state, considerable attention is paid to the protection of individual rights and freedoms as the foundations of democracy. One of the basic personal rights is the right to personal dignity, protection of honor and reputation. Analysis of the structures of the current legislation, the positions of the Supreme Court, acts of the European Court, as well as classical and newest scientific approaches, defamation is an offense expressed in the dissemination of inaccurate information that violates the right of a legal entity to a business reputation. Honor, dignity, business reputation are constituent elements of such categories as personal moral rights and intangible benefits, in order to ensure the realization and functioning of the rights of which, a well-thought-out, well-coordinated and effective protection mechanism must be produced. Attention is focused on the fact that for the proper operation of such a mechanism, it is necessary to determine, first of all, the protected object, what are its features and boundaries that need to be regulated by law. Indeed, in the case of securing an incomplete list of protected in the legislation, fixing in the norms not all signs of the protected or the presence of gaps in the regulation of this legal relationship, the potential for abuse of the right or misinterpretation of its norms arises. National laws define in different ways whether the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff or the defendant. It is concluded that defamation is one of the unlawful acts that infringe upon honor, dignity and reputation and requires further study in the practice of the European Court. In dealing with defamation cases, courts always need to find a compromise and strike a balance between freedom of expression, freedom of thought and speech, and protection of dignity, honor and reputation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document