澳大利亚宪法中作为反歧视条款的宗教考试条款

Luke Beck
{"title":"澳大利亚宪法中作为反歧视条款的宗教考试条款","authors":"Luke Beck","doi":"10.26180/5DB807D8695D1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the religious tests clause of s 116 of the Australian Constitution should be conceived of as an anti-discrimination provision embracing a distinction between direct and indirect religious tests equivalent to the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in other bodies of law. In other words, a religious test exists where there is discrimination, either directly or indirectly, on the ground of religion. The article develops this interpretation using a functionalist comparative analysis with other bodies of law, including European human rights law, American equal protection jurisprudence and Australian anti-discrimination law.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"13 1","pages":"545-578"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Australian Constitution's Religious Tests Clause as an Anti-Discrimination Provision\",\"authors\":\"Luke Beck\",\"doi\":\"10.26180/5DB807D8695D1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues that the religious tests clause of s 116 of the Australian Constitution should be conceived of as an anti-discrimination provision embracing a distinction between direct and indirect religious tests equivalent to the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in other bodies of law. In other words, a religious test exists where there is discrimination, either directly or indirectly, on the ground of religion. The article develops this interpretation using a functionalist comparative analysis with other bodies of law, including European human rights law, American equal protection jurisprudence and Australian anti-discrimination law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"545-578\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB807D8695D1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB807D8695D1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该条认为,《澳大利亚宪法》第116条的宗教检验条款应被视为一项反歧视条款,其中包括对直接和间接宗教检验的区分,相当于其他法律机构中对直接和间接歧视的区分。换句话说,在存在以宗教为理由的直接或间接歧视的地方存在宗教测试。本文运用功能主义的比较分析方法,与欧洲人权法、美国平等保护法和澳大利亚反歧视法等其他法律体系进行比较分析。
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 Australian Constitution's Religious Tests Clause as an Anti-Discrimination Provision
This article argues that the religious tests clause of s 116 of the Australian Constitution should be conceived of as an anti-discrimination provision embracing a distinction between direct and indirect religious tests equivalent to the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in other bodies of law. In other words, a religious test exists where there is discrimination, either directly or indirectly, on the ground of religion. The article develops this interpretation using a functionalist comparative analysis with other bodies of law, including European human rights law, American equal protection jurisprudence and Australian anti-discrimination law.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
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