儿童在替代照料和收养中的宗教身份:在国际人权裁决中重新确立儿童最大利益的必要性

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Human Rights Law Review Pub Date : 2023-03-10 DOI:10.1093/hrlr/ngad002
Ayla do Vale Alves
{"title":"儿童在替代照料和收养中的宗教身份:在国际人权裁决中重新确立儿童最大利益的必要性","authors":"Ayla do Vale Alves","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article argues that international human rights (quasi-)adjudicatory institutions should do better in considering the best interests of the child and freedom of religion in cases involving human rights aspects of alternative care and adoption. The European Court of Human Rights, particularly, has been using obscure and contradictory standards, which ultimately do not privilege the child’s best interests in matters affecting them directly. Recent Grand Chamber jurisprudence instead puts parents’ interests above the child’s. A child-centred approach where children are not objectified, but treated as autonomous, rights-bearing, legal persons, with independent interests that may override those of other stakeholders is needed. This article explores general international and European rules governing children’s religious rights in alternative care and adoption to expose the Court’s pitfalls in centring children in decision-making involving religion particularly. It generally promotes adoption of a child-centred approach in international human rights courts, and particularly highlights existing hurdles in such approach where the decision-making involves conflicting interests concerning religion.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Children’s Religious Identity in Alternative Care and Adoption: The Need to Recentre the Child’s Best Interest in International Human Rights Adjudication\",\"authors\":\"Ayla do Vale Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hrlr/ngad002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article argues that international human rights (quasi-)adjudicatory institutions should do better in considering the best interests of the child and freedom of religion in cases involving human rights aspects of alternative care and adoption. The European Court of Human Rights, particularly, has been using obscure and contradictory standards, which ultimately do not privilege the child’s best interests in matters affecting them directly. Recent Grand Chamber jurisprudence instead puts parents’ interests above the child’s. A child-centred approach where children are not objectified, but treated as autonomous, rights-bearing, legal persons, with independent interests that may override those of other stakeholders is needed. This article explores general international and European rules governing children’s religious rights in alternative care and adoption to expose the Court’s pitfalls in centring children in decision-making involving religion particularly. It generally promotes adoption of a child-centred approach in international human rights courts, and particularly highlights existing hurdles in such approach where the decision-making involves conflicting interests concerning religion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad002\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,在涉及替代性照料和收养的人权方面的案件中,国际人权(准)审判机构应更好地考虑儿童的最大利益和宗教自由。特别是欧洲人权法院一直在使用模糊和相互矛盾的标准,这些标准最终没有在直接影响儿童利益的事项上给予儿童最大利益特权。最近的大法庭判例将父母的利益置于孩子的利益之上。需要采取以儿童为中心的办法,使儿童不被客观化,而是被视为自主的、有权利的法人,其独立利益可能凌驾于其他利益攸关方的利益之上。这篇文章探讨了关于儿童在替代照料和收养方面的宗教权利的一般国际和欧洲规则,以揭露法院在特别涉及宗教的决策中以儿童为中心的缺陷。它一般促进国际人权法院采用以儿童为中心的办法,并特别强调在决策涉及有关宗教的利益冲突时这种办法存在的障碍。
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
Children’s Religious Identity in Alternative Care and Adoption: The Need to Recentre the Child’s Best Interest in International Human Rights Adjudication
This article argues that international human rights (quasi-)adjudicatory institutions should do better in considering the best interests of the child and freedom of religion in cases involving human rights aspects of alternative care and adoption. The European Court of Human Rights, particularly, has been using obscure and contradictory standards, which ultimately do not privilege the child’s best interests in matters affecting them directly. Recent Grand Chamber jurisprudence instead puts parents’ interests above the child’s. A child-centred approach where children are not objectified, but treated as autonomous, rights-bearing, legal persons, with independent interests that may override those of other stakeholders is needed. This article explores general international and European rules governing children’s religious rights in alternative care and adoption to expose the Court’s pitfalls in centring children in decision-making involving religion particularly. It generally promotes adoption of a child-centred approach in international human rights courts, and particularly highlights existing hurdles in such approach where the decision-making involves conflicting interests concerning religion.
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
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Launched in 2001, Human Rights Law Review seeks to promote awareness, knowledge, and discussion on matters of human rights law and policy. While academic in focus, the Review is also of interest to the wider human rights community, including those in governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental spheres, concerned with law, policy, and fieldwork. The Review publishes critical articles that consider human rights in their various contexts, from global to national levels, book reviews, and a section dedicated to analysis of recent jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems.
期刊最新文献
The Discursive Evolution of Human Rights Law: Empirical Insights from a Computational Analysis of 180,000 UN Recommendations The ECHR and the Positive Obligation to Criminalise Domestic Psychological Violence Glorification of Terrorist Violence at the European Court of Human Rights Who Manages Menstrual Health? The Untapped Potential of the Right to Health to Support a Comprehensive Right to Menstrual Health beyond Menstrual Hygiene Management Solidarity as Foundation for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
×
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