SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 64 - Sayı: 4

Two Di fferent Approaches to the Restrictions on Religious Symbols and Clothing: Analysis of the Human Rights Committee s and the European Court of Human RightsCase Law in terms of StatesObligations under International Law

Erkan DUYMAZ
Pages
1113–1160
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thisstudy aims to reveal the difference between the Court s and Commitee sapproaches by analysing relevant case law and tries to find an answer to thequestion of how the state obligations arising from human rights treatiesshould be interpreted faced with this situation

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Freedom to wear religious symbols or clothing, which is an importantcomponent of the freedom of religion and conscience, continues to be one ofthe permanent topics of the European human rights agenda.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The European Court of Human Rights who didn t consider, in asignificant number of the cases, the restrictions on wearing religious symbols-especially in Turkey and France- as a violation of freedom of religion andleaved a wide margin of appreciation to the states in this regard, has been thetarget of criticism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thisstudy aims to reveal the difference between the Court s and Commitee sapproaches by analysing relevant case law and tries to find an answer to thequestion of how the state obligations arising from human rights treatiesshould be interpreted faced with this situation
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Freedom to wear religious symbols or clothing, which is an importantcomponent of the freedom of religion and conscience, continues to be one ofthe permanent topics of the European human rights agenda. The discussionswhich were initially centered around the Islamic headscarf have, in recentyears, included other religious symbols like kippah, cross and Sikh turbanand finally expanded to the ban on the burqa and the face veil in publicspace. The European Court of Human Rights who didn t consider, in asignificant number of the cases, the restrictions on wearing religious symbols-especially in Turkey and France- as a violation of freedom of religion andleaved a wide margin of appreciation to the states in this regard, has been thetarget of criticism. However the United Nations Human Rights Committeehas adopted a different approach and found a violation of the said freedomconcerning similar and sometimes identical individual applications. Thisstudy aims to reveal the difference between the Court s and Commitee sapproaches by analysing relevant case law and tries to find an answer to thequestion of how the state obligations arising from human rights treatiesshould be interpreted faced with this situation

🔖

Cite This Article

DUYMAZ, E. (2022). Two Di fferent Approaches to the Restrictions on Religious Symbols and Clothing: Analysis of the Human Rights Committee s and the European Court of Human RightsCase Law in terms of StatesObligations under International Law. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 64 - Sayı: 4, 1113–1160. https://ajindex.com/articles/442847

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Aliefendioğlu, Yılmaz, “Laiklik ve Laik Devlet”, İbrahim Ö. Kaboğlu (derleyen), Laiklik ve Demokrasi, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, 2001, s. 73- 128. Altıparmak, Kerem; Karahanoğulları, Onur, “Pyrrhus Zaferi: Leyla Şahin/Türkiye, AİHM/Hukuk, Düzenleyici İşlem/Kanun”, Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi, yıl 1, sayı 3, Temmuz-Eylül 2004, s.249-276.
  2. Belelieu, Christopher D., “The Headscarf as a Symbolic Enemy of the European Court of Human Rights’ Democratic Jurisprudence: Viewing Islam Through a European Legal Prism in Light of the Sahin Judgment”, Columbia Journal of European Law, 2006, s. 573-623. (12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 573). Bleiberg, Benjamin D., “Unveiling the Real Issue: Evaluating the European Court of Human Rights’ Decision to Enforce the Turkish Headscarf Ban in Leyla Sahin v. Turkey”, Cornell Law Review, 2005, s. 129-168. (91 Cornell L. Rev. 129). Brems, Eva; Bribosia, Emmanuelle; Rorive, Isabelle; Van Drooghenbroeck, Sébastien, “Le port de signes religieux dans l’espace public: vérité à Strasbourg, erreur à Genève?”, Journal des Tribunaux, 2012, s. 602- 603. Bribosia, Emmanuelle; Caceres, Gabrielle; Rorive, Isabelle, “Les signes religieux au cœur d’un bras de fer: la saga Singh”, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 2014, n° 98, s. 495-513.
  3. Bribosia, Emmanuelle; Rorive, Isabelle, “Le voile à l’école: une Europe divisée”, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 2004, n° 60, s. 951- 983. Conseil d’État, Rapport public 2005,
  4. La Documentation française, Paris, 2005. http://www.conseil- etat.fr/content/download/373/1147/version/1/file/rapportpublic2005.pdf (erişim tarihi: 05.01.2015)
  5. Deguergue, Maryse, “Çağdaş Fransız Demokrasisinde Laikliğin Anlamı”, İbrahim Ö. Kaboğlu (derleyen), Laiklik ve Demokrasi, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, 2001, s. 197-209.
  6. Delmas-Marty, Mireille; Izorche, Marie-Laure, “Marge national d’appréciation et internationalisation du droit. Réflexions sur la validité formelle d’un droit commun pluraliste”, Revue internationale de droit comparé”, 2000, No:4, s. 753-780.
  7. Dhommeaux, Jean, “Les mécanismes internationaux de protection des libertés et droits fondamentaux” in Thierry-S. Renoux (dir.), Protection des libertés et droits fondamentaux, La documentation française (les notices), 2007, Paris, s.71-78.
  8. Doğru, Osman ve Nalbant, Atilla, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi – Açıklama ve Önemli Kararlar, 2. Cilt, Legal, İstanbul, 2013.
  9. Duymaz, Erkan, L’effet horizontal de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Etude de droit public, Presses Académ