Those who believe – including those who believe divergently and those who disbelieve – can clash in daily life with others who believe or disbelieve differently. They can come into conflict with... Show moreThose who believe – including those who believe divergently and those who disbelieve – can clash in daily life with others who believe or disbelieve differently. They can come into conflict with laws and regulations or with state institutions that disturb, interfere with their lives based on those beliefs. When these conflicts reach the courts, they are adjudicated under the freedom of religion and belief. Sometimes, similar cases lead to different outcomes in different jurisdictions. The notion that judicial interpretation matters for human rights is almost uncontested. This study is interested in the standard interpretations of the freedom of religion and belief by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and the European Court of Human Rights. From each of these Courts, 15 cases were selected and systematically analyzed to reconstruct the standard interpretations. They have been compared to find similarities and differences, in terms of optimal protection of believers. The study also analyses and compares the standard interpretations from the perspective of Cass Sunstein’s judicial minimalism. The ultimate goal is to find best practices for optimal protection of believers in the judicial interpretation of the freedom of religion and belief and to enable possible judicial borrowing. Show less
This chapter explores the lawful contours of a growing phenomenon – the administration of criminal justice by non-state armed groups in territories under their control. It highlights a steadily... Show moreThis chapter explores the lawful contours of a growing phenomenon – the administration of criminal justice by non-state armed groups in territories under their control. It highlights a steadily mounting body of international practice recognizing the lawfulness of the ‘de facto’ processes as dependent on how – rather than by whom – justice is administered and considers the conditions that international law places on such justice. These include the core standards of independence and impartiality, fair trial guarantees, respect for the principle of legality and the nature of the crimes, which pose myriad challenges in practice in the context of de facto justice. Among others, the chapter flags the particular implications of increased resort by non-state actors (like states) to broad terrorism-related crimes as a basis for prosecution. Finally, as meeting the standards required of de facto justice will generally depend on external support, the chapter questions whether under international law states can – or in certain circumstances should – cooperate with or recognize such processes consistently with international law. In an area of dynamic legal and practical development, the chapter reveals a landscape that is evolving to meet the realities of the changing nature of non-state actors’ exercise of power and control, but where tensions, uncertainties and paradoxes remain. Show less
The right to be protected against discrimination, which is enshrined in international and national human rights catalogues, pertains to us all as individuals. And this fits the ambition of the... Show moreThe right to be protected against discrimination, which is enshrined in international and national human rights catalogues, pertains to us all as individuals. And this fits the ambition of the modern human rights discourse to protect everyone against the power of public institutions as well as private persons and groups. But in many liberal democracies there are often only some groups protected against discrimination and merely in certain situations. This entails both legal-theoretical and practical dilemmas. In the first place because such provisions transgress the boundaries of legitimate state conduct as provided by our rights. But also because many people who need protection against discrimination will lack it. In addition, there is the risk that old stigmas are enforced or new one’s created. Moreover, such a course of action suggests a hierarchy of suffering wherein the suffering of some has priority over that of others. Last but not least, group-based protection against discrimination might engender a struggle within and between groups for the available assistance. On account of the foregoing, one may recommend that the Dutch hate speech ban, quota laws, and institutional opinions that speak out against discrimination – which are currently group-based – can benefit from a more general approach. Show less
Discrimination is still not sufficiently addressed within liberal democracies. Often only some groups are protected against discrimination and merely in certain situations. This leaves many who... Show moreDiscrimination is still not sufficiently addressed within liberal democracies. Often only some groups are protected against discrimination and merely in certain situations. This leaves many who suffer because of discrimination without recourse. And that is only one of the dilemmas with group-based approaches to the protection against discrimination. So why are these approaches so common? And can we find a viable alternative?In this new book, legal scholar Erwin Dijkstra answers these questions. His analysis is thorough, original, and thought-provoking. This makes Discrimination and the Foundation of Justice indispensable for anyone who seeks a better understanding of discrimination law, the relevant human rights context, and the debate on improving the protection against discrimination. That debate is brought to life through a thoughtful discussion of hotly debated topics like hate speech, affirmative action, and institutions that speak out against discrimination.As discrimination concerns us all, this book was written as a resource for all. It is meant to be read by those studying discrimination law professionally and the broader public alike. Show less
When nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) encounter state resistance to human rights accountability, how do NGOs use international courts for their human rights advocacy strategies? Considering the... Show moreWhen nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) encounter state resistance to human rights accountability, how do NGOs use international courts for their human rights advocacy strategies? Considering the overlapping phenomena of shrinking civic space within authoritarian, hybrid, and democratically backsliding regimes, and state backlash against international courts, NGOs navigate two potential levels of state backlash against human rights accountability. Building on the interdisciplinary scholarship on legal mobilization, we develop an integrated framework for explaining how states' two-level (domestic and international) backlash tactics can both promote and deter NGOs' strategic litigation at international human rights courts (IHRCs). States' backlash tactics can influence NGOs' opportunities, capacities, and goals for their human rights advocacy, and thus affect whether and how they pursue strategic litigation at IHRCs. We elucidate the value of this framework through case studies of NGOs' litigation against Tanzania at the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, an understudied IHRC. Drawing on an original data set, interviews, and documentation, we process-trace how Tanzania's various backlash tactics influenced whether and how NGOs litigated at the Court. Our framework and analysis show how state backlash against human rights accountability affects NGOs' mobilization at IHRCs and, relatedly, IHRCs' opportunities for influence. Show less
Any analysis of histories and cultures of remembrance, bears testimony to the witnessing of humans who have either lived through the experiences as insiders or who have not lived through the... Show moreAny analysis of histories and cultures of remembrance, bears testimony to the witnessing of humans who have either lived through the experiences as insiders or who have not lived through the experiences of the past as outsiders. The possibility of bearing witness to (remember) the horrors, trauma, and destitution of the human condition and to consider its implications for human rights education is what this anthology of essays is about. The editors, Anne Becker, Ina Ter Avest and Cornelia Roux, portrayed as insiders, cogently accentuate how human rights violations in South Africa and the Netherlands ought to be expiated through teaching and learning to justify and preserve dignity, self-respect, and freedom towards the advancement of affective life and humanity. Hopefully, through education, it is averred that degradation, inhumanity, and irresponsibility will be undermined and eradicated. The possibility that dignity and decency will remain in place and that it ought to be preserved at all costs even beyond the imagination, and rightfully so, seems to be at the centre of the editors’ concern for the cultivation of human rights education. In this way, apartheid, colonialism and other pervasive torments of human and non-human life should be distanced from genuine educational encounters. Show less
