Zoekresultaat: 187 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open ILO-Conventie 190: een ‘geïntegreerde aanpak’ van geweld en intimidatie?

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 1 2021
Trefwoorden ILO-Conventie 190, Geweld en (seksuele) intimidatie, Gelijke behandeling, Arbeidsomstandigheden
Auteurs Mr. dr. Bas Rombouts
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    De twee meest recent aangenomen ILO-instrumenten – Conventie 190 en Aanbeveling 206 – reguleren de aanpak van geweld en intimidatie in de context van werk. Het fundament van deze instrumenten is een ‘inclusive, integrated and gender-reponsive approach’ die middels de routes van preventie en bescherming, handhaving en genoegdoening en advies en scholing dient te worden geïmplementeerd. Conventie 190 hanteert een brede definitie van ‘geweld en intimidatie’ en is van toepassing op formele werknemers, maar ook op andere groepen ‘werkenden’. Maar wat is de inhoud en het belang van deze geïntegreerde aanpak, bezien in nationaal en internationaal perspectief? Hoe verhoudt de bescherming tegen geweld en intimidatie onder gelijkebehandelingswetgeving en arbeidsomstandighedenrecht zich tot elkaar en voldoet het Nederlands juridisch raamwerk aan de voorgestelde ‘integrated approach’? Alhoewel de Conventie als normatieve basis gelijke behandeling en non-discriminatie neemt, geeft zij uitdrukkelijk de opdracht aan ratificerende lidstaten om een geïntegreerde aanpak toe te passen, waarbij geweld en intimidatie niet slechts onder gelijkebehandelingswetgeving, maar tevens onder arbeidsomstandighedenrecht en strafrecht worden ondergebracht om zo lacunes in de juridische bescherming voor slachtoffers te voorkomen. Alhoewel de juridische infrastructuur voor deze ‘integrated approach’ in Nederland aanwezig lijkt, is er nog een aantal aandachtspunten aangaande een effectieve implementatie hiervan, met name in relatie tot criteria voor zorgvuldige klachtbehandeling, risicoanalyse en aanpak en de rol van de vertrouwenspersoon.


Mr. dr. Bas Rombouts
Mr. dr. B. Rombouts is werkzaam als universitair hoofddocent aan het departement Private, Business and Labour Law van Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University. Hij is gespecialiseerd in internationaal arbeidsrecht, fundamentele arbeidsnormen, mensenrechten en duurzame ontwikkeling.
Artikel

Access_open What does it mean to be ‘illiberal’?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering Pre-publications 2021
Trefwoorden Liberalism, Illiberalism, Illiberal practices, Extremism, Discrimination
Auteurs Bouke de Vries
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘Illiberal’ is an adjective that is commonly used by scholars. For example, they might speak of ‘illiberal cultures’, ‘illiberal groups’, ‘illiberal states’, ‘illiberal democracies’, ‘illiberal beliefs’, and ‘illiberal practices’. Yet despite its widespread usage, no in-depth discussions exist of exactly what it means for someone or something to be illiberal, or might mean. This article fills this lacuna by providing a conceptual analysis of the term ‘illiberal practices’, which I argue is basic in that other bearers of the property of being illiberal can be understood by reference to it. Specifically, I identify five ways in which a practice can be illiberal based on the different ways in which this term is employed within both scholarly and political discourses. The main value of this disaggregation lies in the fact that it helps to prevent confusions that arise when people use the adjective ‘illiberal’ in different ways, as is not uncommon.


Bouke de Vries
Bouke de Vries is a postdoctoral research fellow at Umeå University and the KU Leuven.
Artikel

Access_open Addressing Problems Instead of Diagnoses

Reimagining Liberalism Regarding Disability and Public Health

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering Pre-publications 2021
Trefwoorden Vulerability Theory, Liberalism, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Public Health, Capabilities Approach
Auteurs Erwin Dijkstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The public health systems of liberal states systematically fail to meet the goals and obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which aims to facilitate full societal participation and independent life choices by all impaired persons, as well as the unburdening of their private caretakers. This failure does not stem from a lack of money or effort by governments and other societal institutions, but flaws in the anatomy of these systems. As these systems confine institutional assistance to the needs of persons with certain delineated disabilities, they neglect the needs of other persons, whose disabilities do not fit this mould. The responsibility for the latter group thus falls to their immediate social circle. These private caretakers are in turn seldom supported. To remedy this situation, I will present the alternative paradigm of vulnerability theory as the possible foundation for a more inclusive approach to public health.


Erwin Dijkstra
Erwin Dijkstra LLM MA is lecturer and researcher at the Department of Jurisprudence of the Leiden Law School of Leiden University.
Rulings

ECJ 19 November 2020, Case C-93/19 P (EEAS – v – Hebberecht), Gender Discrimination, Miscellaneous

European External Action Service (EEAS) – v – Chantal Hebberecht, EU case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Gender Discrimination, Miscellaneous
Samenvatting

    In its consideration of Ms Hebberecht’s request to extend her posting, EEAS could not exclude equal treatment aspects from the consideration on grounds that they were not deemed relevant in the interests of the service.

Pending Cases

Case C-389/20, Gender Discrimination

CJ – v – Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, reference lodged by the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.º 2 de Vigo (Spain) \ on 14 August 2020

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Gender Discrimination

    Deductions from pensions larger than a certain threshold do not necessarily constitute gender and/or age discrimination.

    The Danish Supreme Court recently held that an employer had discharged the reversed burden of proof in a case concerning a physiotherapist who was dismissed shortly after her return from maternity leave.


Christian K. Clasen
Christian K. Clasen is a partner at Norrbom Vinding, Copenhagen.
Pending Cases

Case C-372/20, Social Insurance, Gender Discrimination

QE – v – Finanzamt Wien für den 8., 16. und 17. Bezirk, reference lodged by the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) on 6 August 2020

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Social Insurance, Gender Discrimination
Pending Cases

C-405/20, Gender Discrimination, Pension

EB and Others – v – Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB), reference lodged by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) on 28 August 2020

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Gender Discrimination, Pension

    On 13 December 2019 the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court held that a national provision that renders a father’s entitlement to parental benefits during a shared period of leave dependent on the mother’s situation, but not vice versa, fell outside the scope of Directive 2006/54/EC (the Equal Treatment Directive) since it did not concern “employment and working conditions” within the meaning of Article 14(1)(c) of that Directive. The action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) was thus dismissed. The Court consequently did not consider whether the Norwegian rules amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Directive. Furthermore, no assessment was made as to the potential breach with the general principle of equality of gender under EEA law, as this had not been pleaded by ESA.


Jonas Thorsdalen Wik
Jonas Thorsdalen Wik is an attorneys-at-law at Hjort Law Firm (Oslo, Norway).

Dag Sørlie Lund
Dag Sørlie Lund is an attorneys-at-law at Hjort Law Firm (Oslo, Norway).
Rulings

ECJ 18 November 2020, Case C-463/19 (Syndicat CFTC), Gender Discrimination

Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle – v – Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle, French case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Gender Discrimination
Samenvatting

    A national collective agreement may reserve to mothers alone an additional maternity leave, as long as it seeks to protect them from the effects of pregnancy and motherhood.

    No breach of diplomat’s rights when she was recalled from a post abroad because she was pregnant.

Article

Access_open Can Non-discrimination Law Change Hearts and Minds?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden law and society, social change, discrimination, non-discrimination law, positive action
Auteurs Anita Böcker
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A question that has preoccupied sociolegal scholars for ages is whether law can change ‘hearts and minds’. This article explores whether non-discrimination law can create social change, and, more particularly, whether it can change attitudes and beliefs as well as external behaviour. The first part examines how sociolegal scholars have theorised about the possibility and desirability of using law as an instrument of social change. The second part discusses the findings of empirical research on the social working of various types of non-discrimination law. What conclusions can be drawn about the ability of non-discrimination law to create social change? What factors influence this ability? And can non-discrimination law change people’s hearts and minds as well as their behaviour? The research literature does not provide an unequivocal answer to the latter question. However, the overall picture emerging from the sociolegal literature is that law is generally more likely to bring about changes in external behaviour and that it can influence attitudes and beliefs only indirectly, by altering the situations in which attitudes and opinions are formed.


Anita Böcker
Anita Böcker is associate professor of Sociology of Law at Radboud University, Nijmegen.
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 How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice?

A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden prejudice, soft paternalism, empathy, liberalism, employment discrimination, access to goods and services
Auteurs Ioanna Tourkochoriti
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Ioanna Tourkochoriti is Lecturer Above the Bar, NUI Galway School of Law.

    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.
Toont 1 - 20 van 187 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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.