Limitations on Religious Headdress and Two Different Viewpoints: Inferences from Findings of the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee
Anahtar Kelimeler:
Right to manifest religion or belief, religious headdress, the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Committee, the principle of secularism., Right to manifest religion or belief, religious headdress, the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Committee, the principle of secularism.
Limitations on Religious Headdress and Two Different Viewpoints: Inferences from Findings of the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee
Wearing religious headdress, as a way of manifestation of religion or belief, is protected under the freedom of religion or belief in international human rights law. In their respective articles, the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prescribed nearly the same limitation regime for external dimension of the freedom of religion or belief, namely the right to manifest religion or belief. However, it has been observed in the past few decades that supervisory bodies of these two treaties, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, have reached different outcomes in very similar disputes concerning wearing religious headdresses. Departing from this fact, this study aims at seeking an answer to the question of ‘why and in what way the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the right to manifest religion or belief differs from each other in the religious headdress cases’. To this end, after examining several samples from judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that are most capable of illustrating the divergence in their case-law, it will be tried to find out some possible reasons and consequences of the divergence between the two institutions’ rulings on the same matter. In this context, the study will specifically dwell on the two bodies’ approaches to the legitimate aim criterion, the principle of secularism and states’ margin of appreciation in limiting the right to manifest religion or belief.
Keywords:
Right to manifest religion or belief, religious headdress, the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Committee, the principle of secularism., Right to manifest religion or belief, religious headdress, the European Court of Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Committee, the principle of secularism,
___
- AHDAR, Rex (2013). “Is secularism neutral?”, Ratio Juris, Vol. 26, Is. 3, pp. 404-429.
- ARAI-TAKAHASHI, Yutaka (2002). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Antwerp: Intersentia.
- BERRY, Stephanie E. (2017). “A good faith interpretation of the right to manifest religion? The diverging approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee”, Legal Studies, Vol. 37, Is. 4, pp. 672-694.
- BERRY, Stephanie E. (2019). Avoiding Scrutiny? The Margin of Appreciation and Religious Freedom, in TEMPERMAN, Jeroen, GUNN, Thomas Jeremy and EVANS, Malcolm David (Eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief (The 25 Years since Kokkinakis) (pp. 103- 127), Leiden-Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.
- BIELEFELDT, Heiner (2013). “Misperceptions of Freedom of Religion or Belief”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 33-68.
- BIELEFELDT, Heiner, GHANEA, Nazila, WIENER Michael (2017). Freedom of Religion or Belief, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- BOMHOFF, Jacco (2007). ‘The Rights and Freedoms of Others’: The ECHR and Its Peculiar Category of Conflicts Between Individual Fundamental Rights’, < papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031682 > (Date of Access: 5/5/2021).
- CHAKIM, M. Lutfi (2020). “The margin of appreciation and freedom of religion: assessing standards of the European Court of Human Rights”, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 24, Is. 6, pp. 850-867.
- CONNORS, Jane (2018). United Nations, in MOECKLI, Daniel, SHAH, Sangeeta and SIVAKUMARAN, Sandesh (Eds.), International Human Rights Law (pp. 369-410), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- CRAM, Ian (2018). “Protocol 15 and Articles 10 and 11 ECHR-The Partial Triumph of Political Incumbency Post-Brighton?”, The International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 67, Is. 3, pp. 477-503.
- CUMPER, Peter and LEWIS, Tom (2008-2009). “Taking Religion Seriously? Human Rights and Hijab in Europe – Some Problems of Adjudication”, Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 24, Is. 2, pp. 599-627.
- ÇALI, Başak (2018). Regional Protection, in MOECKLI, Daniel, SHAH, Sangeeta and SIVAKUMARAN, Sandesh (Eds.), International Human Rights Law (pp. 411-424), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ISSN: 1301-1200
- Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
- Başlangıç: 1984
- Yayıncı: Anayasa Yargısı Araştırmaları Merkezi
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
ROBERT ALEXY’NİN İLKELER TEORİSİNE GENEL BİR BAKIŞ
ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ KARARLARI IŞIĞINDA İŞ SÖZLEŞMESİNİN SONA ERDİRİLMESİ VE ÖZEL HAYATA SAYGI HAKKI
ÖZEL HAYATA SAYGI HAKKI (AİHS 8. MADDE) BAĞLAMINDA ÇALIŞMA HAKKI VE MESLEKİ HAYAT İLİŞKİSİ
TÜRK İŞ HUKUKUNDA İŞVERENİN İŞÇİNİN ÖZEL YAŞAMINA SAYGI BORCU