The paper was based on contemporary legal, sociological and anthropological literature concerning the issues of discrimination and integration of Roma, as well as on the data obtained in two research projects realised in 2020: "Research on Social Relations among Ethnic Communities in Serbia" (Institute of Social Sciences) and "Roma Equality through Increased Legal Access" (Minority Rights Group). Results of the former project were based on data collected by quantitative methods (national internet sample and field research), while those of the latter were gathered by means of qualitative methods, i.e. interviews with 42 female and 17 male respondents realised in eight focus groups. Crossing the empirical data pertaining to discrimination of the Roma citizens living in Serbia, with the legislative system which should supress and gradually eliminate all forms of discrimination, indicates the depth of the social dimension of this problem, but also the vagueness and deficiencies of the very system.
{"title":"Discrimination and Roma identity in Serbia","authors":"Goran Bašić, Ivana Stjelja","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-31983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-31983","url":null,"abstract":"The paper was based on contemporary legal, sociological and anthropological literature concerning the issues of discrimination and integration of Roma, as well as on the data obtained in two research projects realised in 2020: \"Research on Social Relations among Ethnic Communities in Serbia\" (Institute of Social Sciences) and \"Roma Equality through Increased Legal Access\" (Minority Rights Group). Results of the former project were based on data collected by quantitative methods (national internet sample and field research), while those of the latter were gathered by means of qualitative methods, i.e. interviews with 42 female and 17 male respondents realised in eight focus groups. Crossing the empirical data pertaining to discrimination of the Roma citizens living in Serbia, with the legislative system which should supress and gradually eliminate all forms of discrimination, indicates the depth of the social dimension of this problem, but also the vagueness and deficiencies of the very system.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71030847","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}
As part of their regular activities, courts attach meaning to legal texts to determine the normative situation of the parties to the dispute. The activity of attributing meaning to legal texts by the courts is commonly called authoritative interpretation of law. In many cases, the meaning attributed to the text by the court deviates significantly from what laymen and even lawyers would expect, and the deviations themselves are explained in different ways in legal theory. In the purpose of explanation, the terms creation and application of law, extensive and restrictive interpretation, secundum, praeter and contra legem adjudication are used. This paper introduces and explains the concepts of interpretation, construction and their relationship, as possible explanations of situations in which authoritative judicial interpretations deviate from the expectations of the professional and lay public. For this purpose, contemporary textualist and intentionalist (cognitivist) conceptions of interpretation and construction are presented and compared with contemporary skeptical (realist, antiformalist) conceptions. Despite the simplicity and intuitive acceptability of some cognitivist views, skepticism is shown to provide a better theoretical basis for considering the application and creation of rights by courts. The very distinction between interpretation and construction proves to be a useful theoretical tool for explaining the actions of courts, as well as for specifying existing theoretical distinctions.
{"title":"Interpretation and construction: An addendum to the discussion about creation and application of law","authors":"Bojan Spaić","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-31882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-31882","url":null,"abstract":"As part of their regular activities, courts attach meaning to legal texts to determine the normative situation of the parties to the dispute. The activity of attributing meaning to legal texts by the courts is commonly called authoritative interpretation of law. In many cases, the meaning attributed to the text by the court deviates significantly from what laymen and even lawyers would expect, and the deviations themselves are explained in different ways in legal theory. In the purpose of explanation, the terms creation and application of law, extensive and restrictive interpretation, secundum, praeter and contra legem adjudication are used. This paper introduces and explains the concepts of interpretation, construction and their relationship, as possible explanations of situations in which authoritative judicial interpretations deviate from the expectations of the professional and lay public. For this purpose, contemporary textualist and intentionalist (cognitivist) conceptions of interpretation and construction are presented and compared with contemporary skeptical (realist, antiformalist) conceptions. Despite the simplicity and intuitive acceptability of some cognitivist views, skepticism is shown to provide a better theoretical basis for considering the application and creation of rights by courts. The very distinction between interpretation and construction proves to be a useful theoretical tool for explaining the actions of courts, as well as for specifying existing theoretical distinctions.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71030601","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}
On May 5, 2021 Facebook Oversight Board, a global body created by the company to act as an independent appeals mechanism for Facebook's content moderation, issued its highly awaited decision concerning the "indefinite suspension" of former US President Donald Trump's account. The suspension was originally imposed by Facebook between January 6 and 7, 2021 for Trump's posts related to the attacks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. This case note shows the Oversight Board's almost exclusive reliance on international human rights standards in deciding the case. It sees it as a positive development. Additionally, the author argues that the decision also highlights Facebook's struggle and potential lack of willingness to develop a unified approach to its treatment of political leaders and the company's reluctance to grapple with the way its business model has potentially contributed to violent events, including the attacks on the Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.
{"title":"Facebook Oversight Board's decision on the indefinite suspension of Donald Trump's account","authors":"Ivana Vukčević","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-32521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-32521","url":null,"abstract":"On May 5, 2021 Facebook Oversight Board, a global body created by the company to act as an independent appeals mechanism for Facebook's content moderation, issued its highly awaited decision concerning the \"indefinite suspension\" of former US President Donald Trump's account. The suspension was originally imposed by Facebook between January 6 and 7, 2021 for Trump's posts related to the attacks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. This case note shows the Oversight Board's almost exclusive reliance on international human rights standards in deciding the case. It sees it as a positive development. Additionally, the author argues that the decision also highlights Facebook's struggle and potential lack of willingness to develop a unified approach to its treatment of political leaders and the company's reluctance to grapple with the way its business model has potentially contributed to violent events, including the attacks on the Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031076","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}
In The Nature of International Law, Miodrag Jovanović, generally speaking, tries to explain the concept of international law. He analyzes few typical characteristics of the prototype concept of law (institutionality, normativity, coercion and justice-aptness), and then he looks at contemporary international law through "the lenses" of these characteristics. The article pays special attention to his analysis of the normativity of (international) law. The main intention is not to criticize Jovanović's theses about the normativity of law, as such, but to point out that they are not the best possible framework for explaining the normativity of international law. Therefore, a different and more appropriate conceptual framework is presented than the one he offered in the key of Raz's idea of legal norms as exclusionary reasons for action and practical rationality. This framework is grounded on Hart's well-known idea of an internal point of view. The presented argumentation shows that within such a framework, the normativity of international law could be better explained and understood, and also it seems that certain ingrained intuitions about international law fit well into it.
{"title":"Normativity of international law","authors":"Goran Dajović","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-33820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-33820","url":null,"abstract":"In The Nature of International Law, Miodrag Jovanović, generally speaking, tries to explain the concept of international law. He analyzes few typical characteristics of the prototype concept of law (institutionality, normativity, coercion and justice-aptness), and then he looks at contemporary international law through \"the lenses\" of these characteristics. The article pays special attention to his analysis of the normativity of (international) law. The main intention is not to criticize Jovanović's theses about the normativity of law, as such, but to point out that they are not the best possible framework for explaining the normativity of international law. Therefore, a different and more appropriate conceptual framework is presented than the one he offered in the key of Raz's idea of legal norms as exclusionary reasons for action and practical rationality. This framework is grounded on Hart's well-known idea of an internal point of view. The presented argumentation shows that within such a framework, the normativity of international law could be better explained and understood, and also it seems that certain ingrained intuitions about international law fit well into it.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031223","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}
The right to identity of the child, internationally recognized by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is one of the most important in the corpus of child rights. Its structure is complex since it includes several narrower rights. Nevertheless, the situations where it comes to restriction of the right to identity are not negligible. One of them is the right to anonymous birth, the possibility acknowledged by legislators in a certain number of European countries. Conflicting interests between a mother and a child are inevitable consequence of the anonymous birth. The aim of this article is to compare the right to identity of a child and the mother's right to anonymous birth as insurmountable barrier in determining biological origin. Special attention is paid to the possibility of establishing an adequate balance between their interests, by comparing the importance that national legal system offers to each of them, with appropriate arguments, several different models of motherhood regulations are presented and can be found in European legislations. The analysis also includes the stances of international bodies, especially the European Court of Human Rights.
{"title":"Anonymous birth versus child's right to identity","authors":"Tamara Mladenović","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-34192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-34192","url":null,"abstract":"The right to identity of the child, internationally recognized by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is one of the most important in the corpus of child rights. Its structure is complex since it includes several narrower rights. Nevertheless, the situations where it comes to restriction of the right to identity are not negligible. One of them is the right to anonymous birth, the possibility acknowledged by legislators in a certain number of European countries. Conflicting interests between a mother and a child are inevitable consequence of the anonymous birth. The aim of this article is to compare the right to identity of a child and the mother's right to anonymous birth as insurmountable barrier in determining biological origin. Special attention is paid to the possibility of establishing an adequate balance between their interests, by comparing the importance that national legal system offers to each of them, with appropriate arguments, several different models of motherhood regulations are presented and can be found in European legislations. The analysis also includes the stances of international bodies, especially the European Court of Human Rights.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031410","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}
"The Vidovdan" Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, rendered on 28 June 1921, one hundred years after its adoption, remains an unavoidable topic and an occasion for discussions about the reasons for the failure of the Yugoslav state. The unitarian-centralist system unanimously criticized today as an inadequate constitutional form for the functioning of a complex community such as Yugoslavia was once legitimized by the concept of national unity of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The national conception, the type of state system, and the related disagreements are part of both the political and constitutional history of the states that emerged from the disintegration of Yugoslavia. This paper analyses the content of textbooks of Constitutional Law that are in use at law schools in the successor states, which have existed continuously since the breakup of Yugoslavia until today and are used to educate the vast majority of lawyers in these states. The way in which the shared constitutional history from the first decade of Yugoslavia is presented after the collapse of the socialist paradigm (that mainly was unison) largely follows the national borders of the successor states in terms of its content and interpretation.
{"title":"Constitution without a state: The formation of The Kingdom of SCS and \"The Vidovdan\" Constitution in The constitutional law curriculum in Yugoslavia's successor states","authors":"Srđan Milošević","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-32156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-32156","url":null,"abstract":"\"The Vidovdan\" Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, rendered on 28 June 1921, one hundred years after its adoption, remains an unavoidable topic and an occasion for discussions about the reasons for the failure of the Yugoslav state. The unitarian-centralist system unanimously criticized today as an inadequate constitutional form for the functioning of a complex community such as Yugoslavia was once legitimized by the concept of national unity of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The national conception, the type of state system, and the related disagreements are part of both the political and constitutional history of the states that emerged from the disintegration of Yugoslavia. This paper analyses the content of textbooks of Constitutional Law that are in use at law schools in the successor states, which have existed continuously since the breakup of Yugoslavia until today and are used to educate the vast majority of lawyers in these states. The way in which the shared constitutional history from the first decade of Yugoslavia is presented after the collapse of the socialist paradigm (that mainly was unison) largely follows the national borders of the successor states in terms of its content and interpretation.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031000","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}
The value decline in the EU has manyfold consequences. It jeopardizes the very essence of Europe as a community of values. At the same time it endangers legal principles, such as mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust presuming that all Member States are based on the rule of law and protect fundamental rights. Once trust is rebutted, Member States' judicial authorities will refuse to cooperate and recognise each other's judgments in order not to become complicit in individual rights violations and not to contradict the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This paper argues that EU law must allow for such considerations and suspend mutual recognition-based laws not only on a case-by-case basis, as it happens today in practice, but in general with regard to Member States undergoing rule of law decline, in order to uphold the EU's fundamental rights culture, and EU law's equivalency with the Convention's human rights regime.
{"title":"Canaries in a coal mine: Rule of law deficiencies and mutual trust","authors":"Petra Bárd","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-35035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-35035","url":null,"abstract":"The value decline in the EU has manyfold consequences. It jeopardizes the very essence of Europe as a community of values. At the same time it endangers legal principles, such as mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust presuming that all Member States are based on the rule of law and protect fundamental rights. Once trust is rebutted, Member States' judicial authorities will refuse to cooperate and recognise each other's judgments in order not to become complicit in individual rights violations and not to contradict the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This paper argues that EU law must allow for such considerations and suspend mutual recognition-based laws not only on a case-by-case basis, as it happens today in practice, but in general with regard to Member States undergoing rule of law decline, in order to uphold the EU's fundamental rights culture, and EU law's equivalency with the Convention's human rights regime.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031474","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}
The paper presents the system for protection of consumers' collective interests in the Republic of Serbia and its development perspectives. The paper relies on certain results of the research conducted at the Union University School of Law, as well as on specific comparative legal approaches. The Law on Consumer Protection introduced an administrative procedure for collective consumer protection. Contended arguments in favour of that change were efficiency and low costs of administrative procedure. In practice, administrative protection has proven to be more effective than judicial protection, but the effect of deterring traders from actions that violate consumer rights has not been fully achieved. In that sense, the existing system of protection of consumers' collective interests in Serbia can be improved by modifying certain administrative measures and by introducing specific forms of alternative dispute resolution in Serbian consumer legislation. The novelties brought by the Directive on Representative actions, whose adoption can be expected very soon, have also been presented in the paper.
{"title":"Institutional framework of collective consumer protection in the Republic of Serbia: Condition and perspectives","authors":"Jovanka Popović","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-32149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-32149","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents the system for protection of consumers' collective interests in the Republic of Serbia and its development perspectives. The paper relies on certain results of the research conducted at the Union University School of Law, as well as on specific comparative legal approaches. The Law on Consumer Protection introduced an administrative procedure for collective consumer protection. Contended arguments in favour of that change were efficiency and low costs of administrative procedure. In practice, administrative protection has proven to be more effective than judicial protection, but the effect of deterring traders from actions that violate consumer rights has not been fully achieved. In that sense, the existing system of protection of consumers' collective interests in Serbia can be improved by modifying certain administrative measures and by introducing specific forms of alternative dispute resolution in Serbian consumer legislation. The novelties brought by the Directive on Representative actions, whose adoption can be expected very soon, have also been presented in the paper.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71030680","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}
Relying on the Madison-Schmitt dichotomy in the theory of emergency governance, this article will explore to what extent constitutional courts of Southeast Europe imposed warranted limits to the executive power in their responses to the Covid-19 global pandemic. The specific aim of this article is to illustrate how the constitutional courts of Croatia and Serbia responded to the question of whether the Covid-19 pandemic called for the introduction of the state of emergency. The dilemmas that emerged in the Covid-19-related rulings of these courts reflect the heated constitutional theoretical debates on emergency powers, which could be roughly reduced to three main points of examination: (1) Is the executive de facto Schmitt's sovereign , who decides on the case of exception even when the constitution states other-wise? (2) Should the courts, following the historically repetitive practice, demonstrate special deference to other branches of government in the time of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic? (3) Are the courts in the position to assess the constitutionally envisaged facts and conditions for introducing the emergency regime, e.g., to go into a formal and substantive review of the declaration of the state of emergency? The analysis will conclude that the constitutional courts of Serbia and Croatia failed to set out a robust doctrine of emergency powers and constrain other branches of governments effectively. In Serbia, that resulted in a constitutionally legitimized NEO-Schmittian model, which presupposes that in the time of a crisis, the powers of emergency decision making significantly shift to the executive. On the other hand, the Croatian Constitutional Court missed the chance of entrenching a strong Madisonian model based on the interbranch checks and balances and cooperation.
{"title":"Emergency governance (un)bound: A brief reflection on Southeast Europe's response to Covid-19 pandemic","authors":"Teodora Miljojković","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-29534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-29534","url":null,"abstract":"Relying on the Madison-Schmitt dichotomy in the theory of emergency governance, this article will explore to what extent constitutional courts of Southeast Europe imposed warranted limits to the executive power in their responses to the Covid-19 global pandemic. The specific aim of this article is to illustrate how the constitutional courts of Croatia and Serbia responded to the question of whether the Covid-19 pandemic called for the introduction of the state of emergency. The dilemmas that emerged in the Covid-19-related rulings of these courts reflect the heated constitutional theoretical debates on emergency powers, which could be roughly reduced to three main points of examination: (1) Is the executive de facto Schmitt's sovereign , who decides on the case of exception even when the constitution states other-wise? (2) Should the courts, following the historically repetitive practice, demonstrate special deference to other branches of government in the time of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic? (3) Are the courts in the position to assess the constitutionally envisaged facts and conditions for introducing the emergency regime, e.g., to go into a formal and substantive review of the declaration of the state of emergency? The analysis will conclude that the constitutional courts of Serbia and Croatia failed to set out a robust doctrine of emergency powers and constrain other branches of governments effectively. In Serbia, that resulted in a constitutionally legitimized NEO-Schmittian model, which presupposes that in the time of a crisis, the powers of emergency decision making significantly shift to the executive. On the other hand, the Croatian Constitutional Court missed the chance of entrenching a strong Madisonian model based on the interbranch checks and balances and cooperation.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71030550","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}
Despite being closely examined from the perspective of its political background , the 1950 Yugoslav burka ban as a legal text remained until now beyond interests of historians of law. Exposing this Yugoslav law to a strictly normative analysis and comparison with analogous contemporary bans, this paper delivers the findings that largely exceeded the results of historical studies done so far. Though a brief text, the Yugoslav burka ban was a composite legislation that surely contained full-face veil ban, but also penalized criminal acts against unveiling and introduced an embryo to the future socialist Kanzelparagraph i.e., pulpit law as well. Openly aiming to break a religiously inspired behavior, its militant advocacy was only apparently distinct from a more neutral wording of the present-day veil-bans. A thorough analysis of its ideological foundation, however, indicates a crucial common feature with the modern laical legislation: the paternalistic state action excluding religion as such from the open public space and free debate. As such, the legacy of the Yugoslav socialist burka ban contributes to better understanding of militant SEC-ularism as surely a modern, but not a new controversy.
{"title":"The law unveiled: On burka ban, Kanzelparagraph and militant secularism in the socialist Yugoslavia","authors":"Marko Božić","doi":"10.5937/pravzap0-34171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-34171","url":null,"abstract":"Despite being closely examined from the perspective of its political background , the 1950 Yugoslav burka ban as a legal text remained until now beyond interests of historians of law. Exposing this Yugoslav law to a strictly normative analysis and comparison with analogous contemporary bans, this paper delivers the findings that largely exceeded the results of historical studies done so far. Though a brief text, the Yugoslav burka ban was a composite legislation that surely contained full-face veil ban, but also penalized criminal acts against unveiling and introduced an embryo to the future socialist Kanzelparagraph i.e., pulpit law as well. Openly aiming to break a religiously inspired behavior, its militant advocacy was only apparently distinct from a more neutral wording of the present-day veil-bans. A thorough analysis of its ideological foundation, however, indicates a crucial common feature with the modern laical legislation: the paternalistic state action excluding religion as such from the open public space and free debate. As such, the legacy of the Yugoslav socialist burka ban contributes to better understanding of militant SEC-ularism as surely a modern, but not a new controversy.","PeriodicalId":53056,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Zapisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71031327","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：