《欧洲人权公约》第9条规定的思想、良心和宗教自由的欣赏范围

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Oxford Journal of Law and Religion Pub Date : 2022-12-21 DOI:10.1093/ojlr/rwac014
Konstantina Alexopoulou
{"title":"《欧洲人权公约》第9条规定的思想、良心和宗教自由的欣赏范围","authors":"Konstantina Alexopoulou","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwac014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Margin of Appreciation in Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion under Article 9 of ECHR\",\"authors\":\"Konstantina Alexopoulou\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwac014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"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/rwac014\",\"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/rwac014","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

本文分析了欧洲人权法院在第9条案件中制定升值幅度的方式。作为一项辅助性原则,《欧洲公约》缔约国享有一定的升值幅度,但其范围因具体原则而异。一般来说,当适用相称性检验时(例如关于改变宗教信仰、礼拜场所和建筑物、法律承认宗教团体、囚犯权利),当法院已经制定了具体的解释标准时(例如关于国家干涉内政/解散宗教团体或宗教雇主寻求的限制),或当适用相称性检验时,当没有广泛的共识,国家当局处于更好的位置来决定这件事(例如征收教会税,工作场所,公共场所和教育机构的宗教自由)。本文评价产生特定结果的理由和情况,以期提高各国的可预测性和一贯做法。
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 Margin of Appreciation in Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion under Article 9 of ECHR
This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.
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