Pub Date : 2022-10-11DOI: 10.1177/13582291221133264
{"title":"IJDL Editorial","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/13582291221133264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221133264","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"345 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47316736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-08DOI: 10.1177/13582291221123753
Biljana Kotevska
This article focuses on how discrimination cases in general, and multiple and intersectional discrimination cases in specific, are approached by legal practitioners in civil law countries, focusing on three post-socialist countries––Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. The article presents empirical findings from semi-structured interviews showing how legal practitioners approach three equality law institutions: shifting of the burden of proof, comparator and contextualisation. The research findings suggest that challenges for multiple and intersectional discrimination claims persist despite the generally well developed legal framework. There is a general reluctance to accept the shifting of the burden of proof, and there is no established understanding or practice of when the burden is shifted, which hints to a nonunified practice. There is an insistence on a comparator, which burdens intersectional discrimination claims. There is a general disregard of the synergistic effects arising in intersectional discrimination cases and a tendency for disjointing intersectional claims. Thus, while the letter of the law may not be an obstacle for multiple and intersectional claims to be fully heard and properly addressed, the legal practice is.
{"title":"Processing discrimination cases in post-socialist countries: Multiple and intersectional discrimination through the eyes of legal practitioners in Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia","authors":"Biljana Kotevska","doi":"10.1177/13582291221123753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221123753","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on how discrimination cases in general, and multiple and intersectional discrimination cases in specific, are approached by legal practitioners in civil law countries, focusing on three post-socialist countries––Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. The article presents empirical findings from semi-structured interviews showing how legal practitioners approach three equality law institutions: shifting of the burden of proof, comparator and contextualisation. The research findings suggest that challenges for multiple and intersectional discrimination claims persist despite the generally well developed legal framework. There is a general reluctance to accept the shifting of the burden of proof, and there is no established understanding or practice of when the burden is shifted, which hints to a nonunified practice. There is an insistence on a comparator, which burdens intersectional discrimination claims. There is a general disregard of the synergistic effects arising in intersectional discrimination cases and a tendency for disjointing intersectional claims. Thus, while the letter of the law may not be an obstacle for multiple and intersectional claims to be fully heard and properly addressed, the legal practice is.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"386 - 403"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46079998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-30DOI: 10.1177/13582291221124495
Meghan Finn
South Africa’s doctrinal approach to religion in public schools allows for circumscribed space for religious observances, while protecting diverse and minority interests. In Organisasie vir Godsdientse-Onderrig en Demokrasie v Laerskool Randhart [2017] ZAGPJHC 160; 2017 (6) SA 129 (GJ), the High Court held that a public school cannot promote that it adheres to only one religion to the exclusion of others. The judgment placed weight on the value of diversity, which affirms inclusivity and difference in a pluralist society. While diversity is normatively significant, the court’s preference for it is consistent with an ongoing judicial trend that favours reliance on generalised norms over concrete provisions. This leaves open important questions as to how particular religious policies and observances at a school level should be tested within a local context, and the meaning to be given to constitutional requirements that religious observances at state or state-aided institutions be free, voluntary, and conducted on an equitable basis. Five years after that judgment was handed down, these debates are of renewed importance, with legislative amendments currently before Parliament that would require a public school’s code of conduct to take into account the diverse cultural beliefs and religious observances of learners.
南非在公立学校对宗教的教条主义态度为宗教仪式提供了有限的空间，同时保护了多样性和少数群体的利益。在Organisatie vir Godsdiense Onderrig en Demokrasie v Laerskool Randhart[2017]ZAGPJHC 160；2017（6）SA 129（GJ），高等法院认为，公立学校不能宣传其只信奉一种宗教而排斥其他宗教。该判决重视多样性的价值，它肯定了多元社会中的包容性和差异性。虽然多样性在规范上意义重大，但法院对多样性的偏好与目前的司法趋势一致，这种趋势倾向于依赖通用规范而非具体条款。这就留下了一个悬而未决的重要问题，即学校层面的特定宗教政策和仪式应如何在当地背景下进行测试，以及宪法要求国家或国家资助机构的宗教仪式是自由、自愿和公平的。判决下达五年后，这些辩论再次具有重要意义，议会目前正在进行立法修正，要求公立学校的行为准则考虑到学习者的不同文化信仰和宗教仪式。
{"title":"There but for the grace of OGOD: Religion and diversity in South African public schools","authors":"Meghan Finn","doi":"10.1177/13582291221124495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221124495","url":null,"abstract":"South Africa’s doctrinal approach to religion in public schools allows for circumscribed space for religious observances, while protecting diverse and minority interests. In Organisasie vir Godsdientse-Onderrig en Demokrasie v Laerskool Randhart [2017] ZAGPJHC 160; 2017 (6) SA 129 (GJ), the High Court held that a public school cannot promote that it adheres to only one religion to the exclusion of others. The judgment placed weight on the value of diversity, which affirms inclusivity and difference in a pluralist society. While diversity is normatively significant, the court’s preference for it is consistent with an ongoing judicial trend that favours reliance on generalised norms over concrete provisions. This leaves open important questions as to how particular religious policies and observances at a school level should be tested within a local context, and the meaning to be given to constitutional requirements that religious observances at state or state-aided institutions be free, voluntary, and conducted on an equitable basis. Five years after that judgment was handed down, these debates are of renewed importance, with legislative amendments currently before Parliament that would require a public school’s code of conduct to take into account the diverse cultural beliefs and religious observances of learners.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"412 - 423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47967322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-29DOI: 10.1177/13582291221124489
K. S. Jobe
In August 2021, a U.S. Federal District Court ruled that §1326 of the Immigration Naturalization Act (INA) which criminalizes illegal reentry violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment because it has disparate impact upon and discriminatory intent against Mexican and Latinx individuals. While §1326 has been unsuccessfully challenged in numerous other federal courts, US v. Carrillo-Lopez stands out in its originality of interpretation regarding the discriminatory intent of a federal statute. In this case commentary, the reasoning of the case will be explicated, followed by an analysis of the unique statutory interpretation applied within the context of discriminatory intent doctrine.
{"title":"Anti-discrimination jurisprudence: US v. Carrillo-Lopez","authors":"K. S. Jobe","doi":"10.1177/13582291221124489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221124489","url":null,"abstract":"In August 2021, a U.S. Federal District Court ruled that §1326 of the Immigration Naturalization Act (INA) which criminalizes illegal reentry violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment because it has disparate impact upon and discriminatory intent against Mexican and Latinx individuals. While §1326 has been unsuccessfully challenged in numerous other federal courts, US v. Carrillo-Lopez stands out in its originality of interpretation regarding the discriminatory intent of a federal statute. In this case commentary, the reasoning of the case will be explicated, followed by an analysis of the unique statutory interpretation applied within the context of discriminatory intent doctrine.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"404 - 411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48780289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-24DOI: 10.1177/13582291221116476
Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster
Europe’s extraordinary response to those fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has prompted many criticisms of Europe’s treatment of other refugees, and indeed people of colour and members of ethnic minorities fleeing Ukraine. While stark, this differentiated response in not unusual: The global refugee regime treats different refugees differently, as a matter of course. Refugees often encounter racialized migration controls, and systems which privilege some refugees over others. The article seeks to clarify when these practices violate the international legal prohibitions on discrimination on grounds of race and nationality. To do so, it focuses on race discrimination in general international human rights law, clarifying the interaction between general human rights principles and instruments, and the specialist instrument in the field, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. We identify how differences in treatment on grounds of nationality may engage the prohibition on race discrimination both directly (in particular when nationality equates to national origin) or indirectly. Concerning nationality discrimination, the article focuses in particular on the added value of Article 3 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, which obliges states to ‘apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.’ We examine Article 3 both within the overall scheme of the Refugee Convention and as a source to guide interpretation of international human rights norms.
{"title":"(Some) refugees welcome: When is differentiating between refugees unlawful discrimination?","authors":"Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster","doi":"10.1177/13582291221116476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221116476","url":null,"abstract":"Europe’s extraordinary response to those fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has prompted many criticisms of Europe’s treatment of other refugees, and indeed people of colour and members of ethnic minorities fleeing Ukraine. While stark, this differentiated response in not unusual: The global refugee regime treats different refugees differently, as a matter of course. Refugees often encounter racialized migration controls, and systems which privilege some refugees over others. The article seeks to clarify when these practices violate the international legal prohibitions on discrimination on grounds of race and nationality. To do so, it focuses on race discrimination in general international human rights law, clarifying the interaction between general human rights principles and instruments, and the specialist instrument in the field, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. We identify how differences in treatment on grounds of nationality may engage the prohibition on race discrimination both directly (in particular when nationality equates to national origin) or indirectly. Concerning nationality discrimination, the article focuses in particular on the added value of Article 3 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, which obliges states to ‘apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.’ We examine Article 3 both within the overall scheme of the Refugee Convention and as a source to guide interpretation of international human rights norms.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"244 - 280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45659874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-23DOI: 10.1177/13582291221116613
Shreya Atrey, Catherine Briddick, Michelle Foster
People migrate for a range of reasons: to work, to join family members, to study, or to seek international protection. While goods, services and capital can move relatively freely between countries, the same cannot be said for the movement of people. A ‘global mobility divide’ separates the nationals of comparatively wealthy states in the ‘global north’, who enjoy a wide range of legal migration options, from those of poorer states in the ‘global south’. David Owen characterises this distribution of migration opportunities as a ‘racialized pattern of transnational positional difference’, one in which migration controls maintain income inequality between states. E. Tendayi Achiume’s forensic analysis of race and migration law reveals how such controls also produce, and reproduce, inequalities between people:
{"title":"Guest Editor Introduction: Contesting and Undoing Discriminatory Borders","authors":"Shreya Atrey, Catherine Briddick, Michelle Foster","doi":"10.1177/13582291221116613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221116613","url":null,"abstract":"People migrate for a range of reasons: to work, to join family members, to study, or to seek international protection. While goods, services and capital can move relatively freely between countries, the same cannot be said for the movement of people. A ‘global mobility divide’ separates the nationals of comparatively wealthy states in the ‘global north’, who enjoy a wide range of legal migration options, from those of poorer states in the ‘global south’. David Owen characterises this distribution of migration opportunities as a ‘racialized pattern of transnational positional difference’, one in which migration controls maintain income inequality between states. E. Tendayi Achiume’s forensic analysis of race and migration law reveals how such controls also produce, and reproduce, inequalities between people:","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"210 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43069633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-05DOI: 10.1177/13582291221115538
L. F. Freier, Valeria Aron Said, Diego Quesada Nicoli
In the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have established that the principle of equality and non-discrimination requires States to both ensure that migrants are not discriminated against on any of the protected grounds of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as to take specific action to protect certain groups of migrants that are in a situation of vulnerability. Via a comparative quantitative analysis of the immigration and refugee laws, as well as implementing regulations, of 20 Latin American countries, we examine the extent of non-discrimination and special protection provided by the region’s migratory legislation. Our results reveal three main findings. First, more recent immigration and refugee laws tend to be more expansive, which reflects the period of migratory liberalisation in the region. Second, while non-discrimination clauses are more dominant in laws, special protection clauses are primarily present in implementing regulations. This suggests that countries see special protection as a tool to positive discrimination of particularly vulnerable groups. Third, although we identify an overall expansion on protection grounds, countries’ migratory laws mostly reflect traditional categories like: sex/gender; race/ethnicity/colour; nationality; economic/social condition; and religion. Overall, although laudable, the impact of these provisions on reversing structural discrimination from an intersectional approach remains questionable.
{"title":"Non-Discrimination and special protection for migrants and refugees","authors":"L. F. Freier, Valeria Aron Said, Diego Quesada Nicoli","doi":"10.1177/13582291221115538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221115538","url":null,"abstract":"In the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have established that the principle of equality and non-discrimination requires States to both ensure that migrants are not discriminated against on any of the protected grounds of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as to take specific action to protect certain groups of migrants that are in a situation of vulnerability. Via a comparative quantitative analysis of the immigration and refugee laws, as well as implementing regulations, of 20 Latin American countries, we examine the extent of non-discrimination and special protection provided by the region’s migratory legislation. Our results reveal three main findings. First, more recent immigration and refugee laws tend to be more expansive, which reflects the period of migratory liberalisation in the region. Second, while non-discrimination clauses are more dominant in laws, special protection clauses are primarily present in implementing regulations. This suggests that countries see special protection as a tool to positive discrimination of particularly vulnerable groups. Third, although we identify an overall expansion on protection grounds, countries’ migratory laws mostly reflect traditional categories like: sex/gender; race/ethnicity/colour; nationality; economic/social condition; and religion. Overall, although laudable, the impact of these provisions on reversing structural discrimination from an intersectional approach remains questionable.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"281 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48675563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-05DOI: 10.1177/13582291221115266
Katja Karjalainen, M. Issakainen, Marjo Ylhäinen, S. Marashi, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund, Jennifer Boger, A. Astell, A. Mäki-Petäjä-Leinonen, Louise Nygård
This article reports the results of a socio-legal investigation into how continued work among people living with progressive cognitive impairments such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early onset dementia (EOD) can be supported. This study that makes use of empirical data collected in Finland, Sweden and Canada seeks to give voice to people living with MCI or EOD and set their experiential knowledge in dialogue with equality rights related tools provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The results illustrate that there are effective tools available that remove barriers to participation and support continued work of employees living with cognitive impairments at least for some time while impairments are mild. Ideally, flexibility and solidarity in the workplace automatically eliminates the effects of individual impairment. However, cognitive impairments are often such that along with general accessibility measures individual accommodations are needed. Supporting continued work expands the freedom to continue meaningful work in the preferred manner and offers people the means to gain a livelihood and participate in society as a member of the work community on equal basis with others.
{"title":"Supporting continued work under the UNCRPD – views of employees living with mild cognitive impairment or early onset dementia","authors":"Katja Karjalainen, M. Issakainen, Marjo Ylhäinen, S. Marashi, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund, Jennifer Boger, A. Astell, A. Mäki-Petäjä-Leinonen, Louise Nygård","doi":"10.1177/13582291221115266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221115266","url":null,"abstract":"This article reports the results of a socio-legal investigation into how continued work among people living with progressive cognitive impairments such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early onset dementia (EOD) can be supported. This study that makes use of empirical data collected in Finland, Sweden and Canada seeks to give voice to people living with MCI or EOD and set their experiential knowledge in dialogue with equality rights related tools provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The results illustrate that there are effective tools available that remove barriers to participation and support continued work of employees living with cognitive impairments at least for some time while impairments are mild. Ideally, flexibility and solidarity in the workplace automatically eliminates the effects of individual impairment. However, cognitive impairments are often such that along with general accessibility measures individual accommodations are needed. Supporting continued work expands the freedom to continue meaningful work in the preferred manner and offers people the means to gain a livelihood and participate in society as a member of the work community on equal basis with others.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"78 1","pages":"371 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65453717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-21DOI: 10.1177/13582291221116612
N. Busby, Grace James
{"title":"Special issue: Contesting and undoing discriminatory borders","authors":"N. Busby, Grace James","doi":"10.1177/13582291221116612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221116612","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"209 - 209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47775498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-14DOI: 10.1177/13582291221114082
Catherine Briddick
This article analyses the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendations and Views on individual complaints, to evaluate its contribution to the elimination of discrimination against women experienced in the context of migration control. It makes two arguments. First, the Committee’s General Recommendations contain a range of doctrinal and empirical shortcomings. This opacity, and these omissions, considerably reduce the value of the Committee’s statements as a means by which States’ discriminatory migration control practices might be contested. Second, the Committee’s decisions, in communications concerned with discrimination experienced in the context of migration control, are inconsistent with those standards that it has set, and with the decisions it makes in other types of cases. A detailed analysis of the jurisprudence grounds the conclusion that the Committee is, in practice, according States a margin of appreciation that varies according to the subject of the complaint. Particular, representative communications are drawn on to argue that the margin granted in cases concerned with migration control is over-wide, characteristic not of appropriate (quasi) judicial restraint, but unprincipled deference. The article concludes by suggesting how some of the criticisms outlined may be remedied, notably by the Committee adopting its own justification and proportionality assessment.
{"title":"Unprincipled and unrealised: CEDAW and discrimination experienced in the context of migration control","authors":"Catherine Briddick","doi":"10.1177/13582291221114082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221114082","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendations and Views on individual complaints, to evaluate its contribution to the elimination of discrimination against women experienced in the context of migration control. It makes two arguments. First, the Committee’s General Recommendations contain a range of doctrinal and empirical shortcomings. This opacity, and these omissions, considerably reduce the value of the Committee’s statements as a means by which States’ discriminatory migration control practices might be contested. Second, the Committee’s decisions, in communications concerned with discrimination experienced in the context of migration control, are inconsistent with those standards that it has set, and with the decisions it makes in other types of cases. A detailed analysis of the jurisprudence grounds the conclusion that the Committee is, in practice, according States a margin of appreciation that varies according to the subject of the complaint. Particular, representative communications are drawn on to argue that the margin granted in cases concerned with migration control is over-wide, characteristic not of appropriate (quasi) judicial restraint, but unprincipled deference. The article concludes by suggesting how some of the criticisms outlined may be remedied, notably by the Committee adopting its own justification and proportionality assessment.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"224 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46568815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：