Zoekresultaat: 38 artikelen

x
Article

Access_open Positive State Obligations under European Law: A Tool for Achieving Substantive Equality for Sexual Minorities in Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Positive obligations, sexual minorities, sexual orientation, European law, human rights
Auteurs Alina Tryfonidou
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article seeks to examine the development of positive obligations under European law in the specific context of the rights of sexual minorities. It is clear that the law should respect and protect all sexualities and diverse intimate relationships without discrimination, and for this purpose it needs to ensure that sexual minorities can not only be free from state interference when expressing their sexuality in private, but that they should be given the right to express their sexuality in public and to have their intimate relationships legally recognised. In addition, sexual minorities should be protected from the actions of other individuals, when these violate their legal and fundamental human rights. Accordingly, in addition to negative obligations, European law must impose positive obligations towards sexual minorities in order to achieve substantive equality for them. The article explains that, to date, European law has imposed a number of such positive obligations; nonetheless, there is definitely scope for more. It is suggested that European law should not wait for hearts and minds to change before imposing additional positive obligations, especially since this gives the impression that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are condoning or disregarding persistent discrimination against sexual minorities.


Alina Tryfonidou
Alina Tryfonidou is Professor of Law, University of Reading.
Article

Access_open A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation under International Human Rights Law

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Dehumanisation, International Human Rights Law, Positive State obligations, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
Auteurs Stephanie Eleanor Berry
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    International human rights law (IHRL) was established in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent a reoccurrence of the atrocities committed in the name of fascism. Central to this aim was the recognition that out-groups are particularly vulnerable to rights violations committed by the in-group. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that out-groups are still subject to a wide range of rights violations, including those associated with mass atrocities. These rights violations are facilitated by the dehumanisation of the out-group by the in-group. Consequently, this article argues that the creation of IHRL treaties and corresponding monitoring mechanisms should be viewed as the first step towards protecting out-groups from human rights violations. By adopting the lens of dehumanisation, this article demonstrates that if IHRL is to achieve its purpose, IHRL monitoring mechanisms must recognise the connection between dehumanisation and rights violations and develop a positive State obligation to counter dehumanisation. The four treaties explored in this article, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, all establish positive State obligations to prevent hate speech and to foster tolerant societies. These obligations should, in theory, allow IHRL monitoring mechanisms to address dehumanisation. However, their interpretation of the positive State obligation to foster tolerant societies does not go far enough to counter unconscious dehumanisation and requires more detailed elaboration.


Stephanie Eleanor Berry
Stephanie Eleanor Berry is Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, University of Sussex.
Article

Access_open The Potential of Positive Obligations Against Romaphobic Attitudes and in the Development of ‘Roma Pride’

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Roma, Travellers, positive obligations, segregation, culturally adequate accommodation
Auteurs Lilla Farkas en Theodoros Alexandridis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article analyses the jurisprudence of international tribunals on the education and housing of Roma and Travellers to understand whether positive obligations can change the hearts and minds of the majority and promote minority identities. Case law on education deals with integration rather than cultural specificities, while in the context of housing it accommodates minority needs. Positive obligations have achieved a higher level of compliance in the latter context by requiring majorities to tolerate the minority way of life in overwhelmingly segregated settings. Conversely, little seems to have changed in education, where legal and institutional reform, as well as a shift in both majority and minority attitudes, would be necessary to dismantle social distance and generate mutual trust. The interlocking factors of accessibility, judicial activism, European politics, expectations of political allegiance and community resources explain jurisprudential developments. The weak justiciability of minority rights, the lack of resources internal to the community and dual identities among the Eastern Roma impede legal claims for culture-specific accommodation in education. Conversely, the protection of minority identity and community ties is of paramount importance in the housing context, subsumed under the right to private and family life.


Lilla Farkas
Lilla Farkas is a practising lawyer in Hungary and recently earned a PhD from the European University Institute entitled ‘Mobilising for racial equality in Europe: Roma rights and transnational justice’. She is the race ground coordinator of the European Union’s Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-discrimination.

Theodoros Alexandridis
Theodoros Alexandridis is a practicing lawyer in Greece.

    The entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) pushed state obligations to counter prejudice and stereotypes concerning people with disabilities to the forefront of international human rights law. The CRPD is underpinned by a model of inclusive equality, which views disability as a social construct that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and barriers, including attitudinal barriers, that hinder their participation in society. The recognition dimension of inclusive equality, together with the CRPD’s provisions on awareness raising, mandates that states parties target prejudice and stereotypes about the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities to society. Certain human rights treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and, to a much lesser extent, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, require states to eradicate harmful stereotypes and prejudice about people with disabilities in various forms of interpersonal relationships. This trend is also reflected, to a certain extent, in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article assesses the extent to which the aforementioned human rights bodies have elaborated positive obligations requiring states to endeavour to change ‘hearts and minds’ about the inherent capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities. It analyses whether these bodies have struck the right balance in elaborating positive obligations to eliminate prejudice and stereotypes in interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, it highlights the convergences or divergences that are evident in the bodies’ approaches to those obligations.


Andrea Broderick
Andrea Broderick is Assistant Professor at the Universiteit Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open State Obligations to Counter Islamophobia: Comparing Fault Lines in the International Supervisory Practice of the HRC/ICCPR, the ECtHR and the AC/FCNM

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Human rights, positive state obligations, islamophobia, international supervisory mechanisms
Auteurs Kristin Henrard
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Islamophobia, like xenophobia, points to deep-seated, ingrained discrimination against a particular group, whose effective enjoyment of fundamental rights is impaired. This in turn triggers the human rights obligations of liberal democratic states, more particularly states’ positive obligations (informed by reasonability considerations) to ensure that fundamental rights are effectively enjoyed, and thus also respected in interpersonal relationships. This article identifies and compares the fault lines in the practice of three international human rights supervisory mechanisms in relation to Islamophobia, namely the Human Rights Committee (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the European Court of Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights) and the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The supervisory practice is analysed in two steps: The analysis of each international supervisory mechanism’s jurisprudence, in itself, is followed by the comparison of the fault lines. The latter comparison is structured around the two main strands of strategies that states could adopt in order to counter intolerance: On the one hand, the active promotion of tolerance, inter alia through education, awareness-raising campaigns and the stimulation of intercultural dialogue; on the other, countering acts informed by intolerance, in terms of the prohibition of discrimination (and/or the effective enjoyment of substantive fundamental rights). Having regard to the respective strengths and weaknesses of the supervisory practice of these three international supervisory mechanisms, the article concludes with some overarching recommendations.


Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is Professor International Human Rights and Minorities, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is Professor International Human Rights and Minorities, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000: Proposals for Legislative Reform to Promote Equality through Schools and the Education System

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Transformative pedagogy, equality legislation, promotion of equality, law reform, using law to change hearts and minds
Auteurs Anton Kok, Lwando Xaso, Annalize Steenekamp e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article, we focus on how the education system can be used to promote equality in the context of changing people’s hearts and minds – values, morals and mindsets. The duties contained in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (‘Equality Act’) bind private and public schools, educators, learners, governing bodies and the state. The Equality Act calls on the state and all persons to promote substantive equality, but the relevant sections in the Equality Act have not been given effect yet, and are therefore currently not enforceable. We set out how the duty to promote equality should be concretised in the Equality Act to inter alia use the education system to promote equality in schools; in other words, how should an enforceable duty to promote equality in schools be fashioned in terms of the Equality Act. Should the relevant sections relating to the promotion of equality come into effect in their current form, enforcement of the promotion of equality will take the form of obliging schools to draft action plans and submit these to the South African Human Rights Commission. We deem this approach inadequate and therefore propose certain amendments to the Equality Act to allow for a more sensible monitoring of schools’ duty to promote equality. We explain how the duty to promote equality should then play out practically in the classroom to facilitate a change in learners’ hearts and minds.


Anton Kok
Anton Kok is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law of the University of Pretoria.

Lwando Xaso
Lwando Xaso is an independent lawyer, writer and historian.

Annalize Steenekamp
Annalize Steenekamp, LLM, is a Multidisciplinary Human Rights graduate from the University of Pretoria.

Michelle Oelofse
Michelle Oelofse is an Academic associate and LLM candidate at the University of Pretoria.
Editorial

Access_open Introduction

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs Frank Weerman Ph.D.
Auteursinformatie

Frank Weerman Ph.D.
Frank Weerman is Endowed Professor of Youth Criminology at the Erasmus School of Law and a senior researcher at the NSCR (Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement). From 2021 onwards, he is the editor-in-chief of the Erasmus Law Review.
Article

Access_open Age Barriers in Healthcare

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age discrimination, age equality, health care
Auteurs Rachel Horton
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Age limits, minimum and maximum, and both explicit and ‘covert’, are still used in the National Health Service to determine access to a range of health interventions, including infertility services and cancer screening and treatment. Evidence suggests that chronological age is used as a proxy for a host of characteristics in determining access to healthcare: as a proxy for the capacity of an individual to benefit from an intervention; for the type of harm that may result from an intervention; for the likelihood of such benefit or harm occurring; and, in some cases, for other indicators used to determine what may be in the patient’s interest. Age is used as a proxy in this way in making decisions about both individual patients and wider populations; it may be used where no better ‘marker’ for the relevant characteristic exists or – for reasons including cost, practicality or fairness – in preference to other available markers. This article reviews the justifications for using age in this way in the context of the existing legal framework on age discrimination in the provision of public services.


Rachel Horton
Lecturer University of Reading.
Article

Access_open Is the CJEU Discriminating in Age Discrimination Cases?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden age discrimination, old people, young people, complete life view, fair innings argument
Auteurs Beryl ter Haar
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Claims have been made that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is more lenient in accepting age discriminating measures affecting older people than in those affecting younger people. This claim is scrutinised in this article, first, by making a quantitative analysis of the outcomes of the CJEU’s case law on age discrimination cases, followed by a qualitative analysis of the line of reasoning of the CJEU in these cases and concluding with an evaluation of the Court’s reasoning against three theoretical approaches that set the context for the assessment of the justifications of age discrimination: complete life view, fair innings argument and typical anti-discrimination approach. The analysis shows that the CJEU relies more on the complete life view approach to assess measures discriminating old people and the fair innings argument approach to assess measures discriminating young people. This results in old people often having to accept disadvantageous measures and young workers often being treated more favourably.


Beryl ter Haar
Beryl ter Haar is assistant professor and academic coordinator of the Advanced LL.M. Global and European Labour Law at Leiden University and visiting professor at the University of Warsaw.
Jurisprudentie

Hof van Justitie van de EU: leeftijdsdiscriminatie van 25-jarigen mag … of toch niet?

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Leeftijdsdiscriminatie, Jeugdbeleid, Abercrombie & Fitch, Oproepcontract, Jeugdwerkgelegenheid
Auteurs Dr. mr. B.P. ter Haar
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Op 19 juli 2017 deed het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie uitspraak in de zaak Abercrombie & Fitch. Een opmerkelijke uitspraak, want het Hof acht het gerechtvaardigd dat een oproepcontract automatisch eindigt louter en alleen omdat de werknemer de leeftijd van 25 jaar heeft bereikt. In voorgaande arresten waar jongeren anders werden behandeld vanwege hun leeftijd leek het Hof heel strikt te zijn en die niet te accepteren. Is de uitspraak in de zaak Abercrombie & Fitch het begin van een andere houding of toch niet? In deze bijdrage onderzoekt de auteur dit door de uitspraak te plaatsen in de bredere context van leeftijd als discriminatiegrond en het Europese jeugdbeleid. Tegen die achtergrond is tot op zekere hoogte begrijpelijk waarom het Hof de Italiaanse maatregel gerechtvaardigd acht. Echter, met A-G Bobek, komt de auteur tot de conclusie dat voor de essentie van de maatregel leeftijd helemaal niet nodig is als onderscheidend criterium en dat het Hof in deze uitspraak eigenlijk een scheve schaats rijdt.


Dr. mr. B.P. ter Haar
Dr. mr. B.P ter Haar is universitair docent Europees en internationaal arbeidsrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden.

Kristin Henrard Ph.D.
Kristin Henrard is professor minorities and fundamental rights in the department of International and EU law of the Erasmus School of Law in the Netherlands.

Jeremie Gilbert
Jeremie Gilbert is professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Roehampton in the UK.
Artikel

Woonwagenbewoners in Nederland: een strijdbaar volk

Een onderzoek naar het belang van mensenrechten voor woonwagenbewoners

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Travellers/Roma/Sinti, Cultural rights and cultural identity, Legal consciousness, Ewick & Silbey, Empirical research
Auteurs Claire Loven
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Legal institutions as well as European and international organisations have criticised Dutch policy regarding travellers (including Roma and Sinti living in a caravan). Main point of this criticism is that the Dutch government should do more to protect and facilitate the travellers culture.
    In academic literature, the policy has also been criticised from a human rights perspective. In most of these official and academic publications the perspective of travellers was missing. This gave reason for a qualitative research in the form of ten interviews with travellers in the Netherlands. Questions as what does it mean to be a traveller, how should your culture be protected and what do you do to protect your culture (using the law for instance) were, among others, part of these interviews.
    This article not only discusses the results of the interviews, but places them also against the theoretical background of legal consciousness, in particular the research of Ewick and Silbey (1998) in which three categories of attitudes towards the law and legal institutions were distinguished.
    At forehand it was expected that, as being a minority group, travellers would fall in the category ‘against the law’. Yet the findings of this research suggest that travellers, at least the respondents, fall in the category ‘with the law’. They use the law to reach a better position, i.e. to protect their cultural identity.


Claire Loven
Claire Loven is masterstudent Staats- en Bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit Utrecht en ten tijde van het onderzoek bachelorstudent Rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open The Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights’ Consensus-Based Analysis in Recent Judgments Concerning Equal Marriage Rights

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden same-sex marriage, gay marriage, European consensus, margin of appreciation, consensus-based analysis by the ECtHR
Auteurs Masuma Shahid
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution assesses the consensus-based analysis and reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in recent judgments concerning equal marriage rights and compares it to the Court’s past jurisprudence on European consensus and the margin of appreciation awarded to Member States regarding the issue of equal marriage rights. The contribution aims to analyse whether there is a parallel to be seen between the rapid global trend of legalisation of same-sex marriage and the development or evolution of the case law of the ECtHR on the same topic. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Court’s consensus-based analysis is problematic for several reasons and provides possible alternative approaches to the balancing of the Court between, on the one hand, protecting rights of minorities (in this case same-sex couples invoking equal marriage rights) under the European Convention on Human Rights and, on the other hand, maintaining its credibility, authority and legitimacy towards Member States that might disapprove of the evolving case law in the context of same-sex relationships. It also offers insights as to the future of European consensus in the context of equal marriage rights and ends with some concluding remarks.


Masuma Shahid
Lecturer, Department of International and European Union Law, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Religious Freedom of Members of Old and New Minorities: A Double Comparison

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden ECtHR, UNHRC, religious manifestations, religious minorities, empirical analysis
Auteurs Fabienne Bretscher
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Confronted with cases of restrictions of the right to manifest religious beliefs of new religious minorities formed by recent migration movements, the ECtHR and the UNHRC seem to opt for different interpretations and applications of this right, as recent conflicting decisions show. Based on an empirical legal analysis of the two bodies’ decisions on individual complaints, this article finds that these conflicting decisions are part of a broader divergence: While the UNHRC functions as a protector of new minorities against States’ undue interference in their right to manifest their religion, the ECtHR leaves it up to States how to deal with religious diversity brought by new minorities. In addition, a quantitative analysis of the relevant case law showed that the ECtHR is much less likely to find a violation of the right to freedom of religion in cases brought by new religious minorities as opposed to old religious minorities. Although this could be a hint towards double standards, a closer look at the examined case law reveals that the numerical differences can be explained by the ECtHR’s weaker protection of religious manifestations in the public as opposed to the private sphere. Yet, this rule has an important exception: Conscientious objection to military service. By examining the development of the relevant case law, this article shows that this exception bases on a recent alteration of jurisprudence by the ECtHR and that there are similar prospects for change regarding other religious manifestations in the public sphere.


Fabienne Bretscher
PhD candidate at the University of Zurich.
Editorial

Access_open Introduction

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Auteurs Kristin Henrard
Auteursinformatie

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is Professor of fundamental rights and minorities at the Erasmus School of Law, more particularly the Department of International and EU Law. She teaches courses on advanced public international law, international criminal law, human rights and on minorities and fundamental rights.

Maarten Floris de Wilde
PhD, LLM, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Loyens & Loeff.
Artikel

Ontslag vanwege een hoofddoek; de arresten Achbita en Bougnaoui en de Nederlandse rechtspraktijk

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 5 2017
Trefwoorden directe en indirecte discriminatie op grond van godsdienst of overtuiging, religieuze symbolen op de werkplek, rechtvaardigingsgronden, Richtlijn 2000/78/EG, College voor de Rechten van de Mens
Auteurs Mr. A. Swarte en Mr. dr. J.P. Loof
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het Hof van Justitie heeft zich op 14 maart 2017 in twee verschillende zaken uitgesproken over het ontslag van een vrouwelijke werknemer vanwege het dragen van een islamitische hoofddoek. Naar beide arresten werd al enige tijd met spanning uitgekeken, onder meer vanwege de eerder gepubliceerde volkomen uiteenlopende conclusies van advocaten-generaal Kokott en Sharpston. Het Hof van Justitie lijkt veel ruimte te laten aan werkgevers om het dragen van religieuze symbolen op de werkplek te verbieden, mits zo’n verbod op een algemene en neutrale manier geformuleerd wordt. Er blijven echter veel vragen onbeantwoord en daardoor is onduidelijk hoe richtinggevend de arresten nu precies zijn.
    HvJ 14 maart 2017, zaak C-157/15, Samira Achbita/G4S Secure Solutions NV, ECLI:EU:C:2017:203 en zaak C-188/15, Asma Bougnaoui/Micropole SA, ECLI:EU:C:2017:204


Mr. A. Swarte
Mr. A. (Annejet) Swarte is stafjurist bij het College voor de Rechten van de Mens. Dit artikel is geschreven op persoonlijke titel.

Mr. dr. J.P. Loof
Mr. dr. J.P. (Jan-Peter) Loof is wnd. ondervoorzitter onderzoek & advies van het College voor de Rechten van de Mens en doceert staatsrecht en mensenrechten aan de Universiteit Leiden. Dit artikel is geschreven op persoonlijke titel.
Editorial

Access_open Introduction

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2016
Auteurs Kristin Henrard
Auteursinformatie

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is professor of fundamental rights and minorities at the Erasmus School of Law as well as associate professor International and European Law. She teaches courses on advanced public international law, international criminal law, human rights, and on minorities and fundamental rights.
Editorial

Access_open Introduction

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2016
Auteurs Kristin Henrard
Auteursinformatie

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is professor of fundamental rights and minorities at the Erasmus School of Law as well as associate professor International and European Law. She teaches courses on advanced public international law, international criminal law, human rights, and on minorities and fundamental rights.
Toont 1 - 20 van 38 gevonden teksten
« 1
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.