荷兰政治改革党(SGP)与女性被动选举权:从民主理论的角度比较三个高等法院的判决

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Pub Date : 2013-07-24 DOI:10.5334/UJIEL.BU
J. D. Brink, H. T. Napel
{"title":"荷兰政治改革党(SGP)与女性被动选举权:从民主理论的角度比较三个高等法院的判决","authors":"J. D. Brink, H. T. Napel","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.BU","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, in the Netherlands the idea was that political parties were essentially private associations in whose internal affairs the state ought not to interfere. However, the case of the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (Political Reformed Party, hereafter, SGP) has led to a political and public debate on whether this view can be maintained. This article examines the case of the SGP, particularly from the viewpoint of democratic theory. It eventually concludes that party regulation does not need to remain a taboo topic forever, even in the Netherlands, although with the SGP having recently changed its own constitution it may take a while until further provisions will be introduced. Care should be taken, however, that it does not lead to unnecessary infringements on the constitutional freedoms of minorities such as the SGP and its followers. After all, what is the point in pursuing non-discriminatory policies that are themselves discriminatory?","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dutch Political Reformed Party (SGP) and Passive Female Suffrage: A Comparison of Three High Court Judgments From the Viewpoint of Democratic Theory\",\"authors\":\"J. D. Brink, H. T. Napel\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/UJIEL.BU\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Traditionally, in the Netherlands the idea was that political parties were essentially private associations in whose internal affairs the state ought not to interfere. However, the case of the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (Political Reformed Party, hereafter, SGP) has led to a political and public debate on whether this view can be maintained. This article examines the case of the SGP, particularly from the viewpoint of democratic theory. It eventually concludes that party regulation does not need to remain a taboo topic forever, even in the Netherlands, although with the SGP having recently changed its own constitution it may take a while until further provisions will be introduced. Care should be taken, however, that it does not lead to unnecessary infringements on the constitutional freedoms of minorities such as the SGP and its followers. After all, what is the point in pursuing non-discriminatory policies that are themselves discriminatory?\",\"PeriodicalId\":30606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.BU\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.BU","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

传统上,在荷兰,人们认为政党本质上是私人社团,国家不应干涉其内部事务。然而,政治改革党(以下简称“改革党”)的案例引发了一场关于这种观点是否可以维持的政治和公众辩论。本文主要从民主理论的角度来考察SGP的案例。最后得出的结论是,即使在荷兰,政党管理也不需要永远是一个禁忌话题,尽管SGP最近修改了自己的宪法,可能需要一段时间才能引入进一步的规定。但是,应注意不要导致不必要地侵犯象SGP及其追随者这样的少数民族的宪法自由。毕竟,追求本身就是歧视性的非歧视性政策有什么意义呢?
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 Dutch Political Reformed Party (SGP) and Passive Female Suffrage: A Comparison of Three High Court Judgments From the Viewpoint of Democratic Theory
Traditionally, in the Netherlands the idea was that political parties were essentially private associations in whose internal affairs the state ought not to interfere. However, the case of the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (Political Reformed Party, hereafter, SGP) has led to a political and public debate on whether this view can be maintained. This article examines the case of the SGP, particularly from the viewpoint of democratic theory. It eventually concludes that party regulation does not need to remain a taboo topic forever, even in the Netherlands, although with the SGP having recently changed its own constitution it may take a while until further provisions will be introduced. Care should be taken, however, that it does not lead to unnecessary infringements on the constitutional freedoms of minorities such as the SGP and its followers. After all, what is the point in pursuing non-discriminatory policies that are themselves discriminatory?
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Legal Nature of the Climate Change Regime: Fluctuation between Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office in EU Law: Challenges and Opportunities Discharge of Debts of Insolvent Entrepreneurs Under the Restructuring and Insolvency Directive Editorial of Volume 38, Issue I of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging the Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
×
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