This paper is largely an endorsement and a further elaboration of Cohen’s critical discussion of the Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor cases and the conceptual overstretch of religious freedom they embody. I disagree with Cohen, however, on the proper interpretation of this debate. Cohen construes the ominous Court cases as an anti-liberal attack on the liberal state order. My main thesis is that the root of this dispute can be traced back to a fault line within liberalism between a more tolerance-leaning and a more equality-leaning tradition. I argue that the ominous cases are instances of the tolerance-leaning tradition in liberalism, which once was characteristic of the liberal tradition. Still, I agree with Cohen that this tradition should be rejected because it reverts to an obsolete interpretation of religious freedom that defends unwarranted privileges for certain groups that are out of sync with the egalitarian underpinnings of contemporary liberal political orders. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | Hobby Lobby, Hosanna-Tabor, tolerance-leaning liberalism, equality-leaning liberalism |
Auteurs | Roland Pierik |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Auteurs | Professor Jean L. Cohen |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In her reply to critics, Jean Cohen responds to some of the main criticisms and remarks raised by the respondents. |
Redactioneel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Auteurs | Stefan Rummens en Roland Pierik |
Auteursinformatie |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | European jurisprudence, freedom of religion, religious-based associations, religious accommodation |
Auteurs | Patrick Loobuyck |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Jean Cohen argues that recent US Supreme Court decisions about institutional accommodation are problematic. She rightly points out that justice and the liberal concept of freedom of consciousness cannot do the work in Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor: what does the work is a medieval political-theological conception of church immunity and sovereignty. The first part of this commentary sketches how the autonomy of churches and religious associations can be considered from a liberal perspective, avoiding the pitfall of the medieval idea of libertas ecclesiae based on church immunity and sovereignty. The second part discusses the European jurisprudence about institutional accommodation claims and concludes that until now the European Court of Human Rights is more nuanced and its decisions are more in line with liberalism than the US Jurisprudence. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | democracy, exemptions, group rights, religious institutionalism |
Auteurs | Jonathan Seglow |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
This response concurs with Cohen’s critique of the Hobby Lobby and Hosanna-Tabor cases but investigates whether religious accommodation might sometimes be justified in the case of institutions and groups (not just individuals). It suggests that exemptions for associations that are recruited to advance state purposes (e.g., in welfare or education) may be more justifiable than where private associations seek to maintain illiberal – for example, discriminatory – rules in line with their religious ethos. Non-democratic associations with a strong religious ethos might in principle enjoy permissible accommodation on the grounds that its members acquiesced to that ethos by joining the association, but only if other conditions are met. Democratic associations with a religious ethos have in principle a stronger claim for accommodation; in practice, however, few religious associations are internally democratic, especially where they seek to preserve illiberal internal rules. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | accommodation, freedom of religion, political theology, liberalism, liberty of conscience |
Auteurs | Jean L. Cohen |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
This article focuses on an expansive conception of religious freedom propagated by a vocal group of American legal scholars – jurisdictional pluralists – often working with well-funded conservative foundations and influencing accommodation decisions throughout the US. I show that the proliferation of ‘accommodation’ claims in the name of church autonomy and religious conscience entailing exemption from civil regulation and anti-discrimination laws required by justice have a deep structure that has little to do with fairness or inclusion or liberal pluralism. Instead they are tantamount to sovereignty claims, involving powers and immunities for the religious, implicitly referring to another, higher law and sovereign than the constitution or the people. The twenty-first century version of older pluralist ‘freedom of religion’ discourses also rejects the comprehensive jurisdiction and scope of public, civil law – this time challenging the ‘monistic sovereignty’ of the democratic constitutional state. I argue that the jurisdictional pluralist approach to religious freedom challenges liberal democratic constitutionalism at its core and should be resisted wherever it arises. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | group pluralism, multiculturalism, religious accommodation |
Auteurs | Avigail Eisenberg |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In this paper, I sharply distinguish between religious group-based pluralism and religious accommodation, which are each reflected in the cases examined in Jean Cohen’s paper and thereby provide a clearer understanding of different kinds of challenges to protecting religious freedom today and explain how these two approaches sometimes pull interpretations of religious freedom in different directions. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2015 |
Trefwoorden | church autonomy, freedom of association, Jean Cohen, freedom of religion |
Auteurs | Sune Lægaard |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
The paper investigates arguments for the idea in recent American Supreme Court jurisprudence that freedom of religion should not simply be understood as an ordinary legal right within the framework of liberal constitutionalism but as an expression of deference by the state and its legal system to religion as a separate and independent jurisdiction with its own system of law over which religious groups are sovereign. I discuss the relationship between, on the one hand, ordinary rights of freedom of association and freedom of religion and, on the other hand, this idea of corporate freedom of religion, often called ‘church autonomy’. I argue that the arguments conflate different issues, elide important distinctions and equivocate over crucial terms. There is accordingly a need for disaggregation of the concerns raised under the heading of church autonomy. This significantly weakens the apparent case for church autonomy. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Trefwoorden | constituent power, legitimacy, representation, collective action, ontology |
Auteurs | Nora Timmermans Ph.D. |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In dit artikel argumenteer ik dat er twee mogelijke invullingen zijn voor het principe van constituerende macht. De eerste mogelijkheid is deze van de klassieke basisveronderstelling van de constitutionele democratie, namelijk dat de gemeenschap zelf vorm kan en moet geven aan de fundamentele regels die die gemeenschap beheersen. Hans Lindahl maakt een interessante analyse van deze traditionele invulling, die ik kritisch zal benaderen. Lindahl heeft immers zelf scherpe kritiek op de invulling die Antonio Negri aan het concept constituerende macht geeft. Mijn interpretatie gaat er echter van uit dat Negri een fundamenteel andere inhoud geeft aan het principe van constituerende macht, waarbij constituerende macht niet alleen wordt losgemaakt van het constitutionalisme, maar meer algemeen van elk rechtssysteem en zelfs van elke vorm van finaliteit. Deze argumentatie werpt een nieuw licht op het debat rond Negri’s theorie van constituerende macht, waarin diens meest fundamentele uitgangspunt vaak over het hoofd wordt gezien. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Trefwoorden | international criminal law, judicial reasoning, casuistry, genocide |
Auteurs | Marjolein Cupido |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
International criminal courts have made an important contribution to the development of international criminal law. Through case law, the courts have fine-tuned and modernized outdated concepts of international crimes and liability theories. In studying this practice, scholars have so far focused on the judicial interpretation of statutory and customary rules, thereby paying little attention to the rules’ application in individual cases. In this article, I reveal the limitations of this approach and illustrate how insights from casuistry can advance international criminal law discourse. In particular, I use the example of genocide to show that casuistic case law analyses can help scholars clarify the meaning of the law and appraise the application of substantive legal concepts in individual cases. Based on these observations, I argue that scholars should complement their current research with studies into the casuistry of international criminal law. |
Boekbespreking |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Auteurs | Arend Soeteman |
Auteursinformatie |
Discussie |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Trefwoorden | drone warfare, politics of international law, humanitarian law, targeted killing |
Auteurs | Wouter G. Werner |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In this article I discuss one of the latest reports on the practice of drone warfare, the UN SRCT Drone Inquiry. I use the report to illustrate some of the specific forms of legal politics that surround drone warfare today. In the first place, I focus on the tension between the capacity of drones to target more precisely and the never-ending critique that drone warfare victimizes civilian populations. Secondly, I focus on the call for more objective legal rules that can be found in many debates on drone warfare. |
Boekbespreking |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Auteurs | Wouter G. Werner |
Auteursinformatie |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Trefwoorden | Kelsen, secular religion, Voegelin, Schmitt, transcendence |
Auteurs | professor Bert van Roermund |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
An alleged ‘return to religion’ in contemporary western politics (and science) prompted the Trustees of the Hans Kelsen Institut to posthumously publish Kelsen’s critique of the concept of ‘secular religion’ advanced by his early student Eric Voegelin. This paper identifies, firstly, what concept of transcendence is targeted by Kelsen, and argues that his analysis leaves scope for other conceptions. It does so in two steps: it summarizes the arguments against ‘secular religion’ (section 2) and it gives an account of the differences between Voegelin’s and Schmitt’s conception of transcendence – both under attack from Kelsen (section 3). It then submits an alternative account of the relationship between politics and religion in Modernity, building on the concept of a ‘civil religion’ as found in Rousseau’s Social Contract. Giving a Rousseauist slant to Claude Lefort’s analysis of political theology (section 4) it concludes that a thin concept of transcendence is part and parcel of every, in particular a democratic, account of politics. It should be a stronghold against any resurgence of religion that feeds on hypostatized transcendence. In closing (section 5), it is argued that two key concepts in Kelsen’s legal philosophy may well be understood as paradigms of thin transcendence, namely ‘the people’ and ‘the Grundnorm’. |
Boekbespreking |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2015 |
Auteurs | Derk Venema |
Auteursinformatie |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Leni Franken |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
I will argue that it is possible to give a neutral or antiperfectionist legitimation for state support for religion, which I consider a perfectionist good that is not in the common interest. I will argue that state support for perfectionist goods (and thus also for religion) can, in some circumstances and under certain conditions, be allowed as a second-best option in order to guarantee an adequate range of valuable options to choose among - and this range of options is a necessary condition for autonomy. Subsequently, I will argue that the bottom line - which is also the limit - for support is a sufficient range of valuable options. Furthermore, I will argue that state support for religion is only allowed if there is a democratic consensus about the value of that particular perfectionist good. Finally, I will claim that state support for religion is only allowed under certain conditions. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Daniel Augenstein |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
The article considers the role of the liberal public-private divide in protecting religious minorities against national-majoritarian assault. It links the defence of the public-private divide to liberal neutrality and argues that it rests on two distinct propositions: that the distinction between the ’public sphere’ and the ’private sphere’ is a meaningful way to cognize and structure modern pluralistic societies; and that there is a meaningful way to distinguish what is or ought to be ‘public’ from what is or ought to be ‘private.’ While the latter proposition cannot be defended on grounds of liberal neutrality, the former proposition provides the institutional framework for conducting liberal politics by enabling the negotiation of the public and the private between national majorities and religious minorities as members of the same political community. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Iris van Domselaar |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
How best to account for moral quality in adjudication? This article proposes a six-pack of judicial virtues as part of a truly virtue-centred approach to adjudication. These virtues are presented as both constitutive and indispensible for realizing moral quality in adjudication. In addition, it will be argued that in order to honour the inherent relational dimension of adjudication a judge should not only possess these judicial virtues to a sufficient degree, he should also have the attitude of a civic friend. The Aristotelian concept of civic friendship will be proposed as an important complement to a virtue-ethical approach to adjudication. |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Jasper Doomen en Mirjam van Schaik |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
In this article, we inquire the merits of criminalizing blasphemy. We argue that religious views do not warrant a separate treatment compared to nonreligious ones. In addition, freedom of speech must be balanced against the interest of those who may be aggrieved by blasphemous remarks. We conclude that penalizing blasphemy is undesirable. It is fortunate, in that light, that acts of blasphemy have recently been decriminalized in The Netherlands by removing blasphemy as an offense from the Criminal Code. Still, other provisions appear to leave enough room to reach the same result, making the removal a possibly virtually aesthetic change. In the international context, it would be regrettable for The Netherlands to forgo the opportunity to take a leading role. |
Boekbespreking |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Bertjan Wolthuis |
Auteursinformatie |