禁止表兄妹结婚的理由

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Oxford Journal of Law and Religion Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1093/ojlr/rwae014
Patrick S Nash
{"title":"禁止表兄妹结婚的理由","authors":"Patrick S Nash","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwae014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case for Banning Cousin Marriage\",\"authors\":\"Patrick S Nash\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwae014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了禁止表兄妹婚姻的普遍理由,而不论司法管辖区或文化背景如何。本文既是一份资料--相关事实和反对论据将以明文列出,以供参考,也是一份法律论据,旨在证明有关这种鲜为人知的习俗的大量证据支持彻底禁止这种习俗。因此,本文分为五个部分。导言简要概述了比较近亲法领域的主要争议,并指明了前进的方向。随后对表兄妹婚姻的现代定义和分布情况进行了研究,以确定其目前的流行程度和主要趋势,然后解释了表兄妹婚姻的做法所造成的后果以及造成近亲结婚偏好的因素。然后,文章转入分析,分别从(i)人权、(ii)偏见、(iii)习俗、(iv)选择和(v)相称性五个方面评估了反对禁止表兄妹婚姻的常见论点。在通篇考虑了相关的医学、社会、历史和地缘政治证据之后,文章最后论证了支持禁止表兄妹婚姻的理由,并就其理由、建议范围、实质内容和实施提出了具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Case for Banning Cousin Marriage
This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.
期刊最新文献
From Transmitting Authority to Quiet Adaptation: Social Change and the Translation of Islamic Knowledge in Norway Playing with the Canon: Ḥanafī Legal Riddles of the Mamluk Period Fragmentation in the European and Inter-American Human Rights Courts Regarding the Scope of Religious Autonomy: An Analysis of the Use of Sources and Methodologies New Threats to Sacred Sites and Religious Property A Tale of Two Ṭarīqas: The Iraqi and Khurasani Shāfiʿī Communities in the Fourth/Tenth and Fifth/Eleventh Centuries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1