Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Of Prophets And Proselytes: Freedom Of Religion And The Conflict Of Rights In International Law, Peter G. Danchin
Of Prophets And Proselytes: Freedom Of Religion And The Conflict Of Rights In International Law, Peter G. Danchin
Faculty Scholarship
The case of proselytism presents a tangle of competing claims: on the one hand, the rights of proselytizers to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech; on the other hand, the rights of targets of proselytism to change their religion, peacefully to have or maintain a particular religious tradition, and to be free from injury to religious feelings. Clashes between these claims of right are today generating acute tensions in relations between States and peoples, a state of affairs starkly illustrated by the recent Danish cartoons controversy. Irrespective of their resolution in any particular domestic legal system, how should …
The Emergence And Structure Of Religious Freedom In International Law Reconsidered, Peter G. Danchin
The Emergence And Structure Of Religious Freedom In International Law Reconsidered, Peter G. Danchin
Faculty Scholarship
This Article presents a critique of the historical evolution of the right to freedom of religion in international law. In identifying certain conceptual tensions between liberal and value pluralist accounts in the literature, a general theoretical argument is advanced. Beyond standard Enlightenment narratives of individual freedom of conscience, this argument notices a second, more complex narrative of genuine pluralism in the evolving conception of religious freedom in international legal thought. This suggests that there is no simple, but rather a complex mapping of individual toleration in international law and no single path to modernity or to the formation of the …
Suspect Symbols: Value Pluralism As A Theory Of Religious Freedom In International Law, Peter G. Danchin
Suspect Symbols: Value Pluralism As A Theory Of Religious Freedom In International Law, Peter G. Danchin
Faculty Scholarship
The grounds upon which states may limit the freedom to manifest religion or belief are divisive questions in constitutional and international law. The focus of recent inquiry has been on laws which proscribe the wearing of religious symbols in certain aspects of the public sphere, and on the claims more generally to religious and cultural freedom of Muslim minorities in European nation-states. Stepping back from these debates, this Article aims at a more rigorous theoretical treatment of the subject. It asks whether there is a coherent notion of religious freedom in international legal theory and, if not, why not? In …
Beyond Rationalism And Instrumentalism: The Case For Rethinking U.S. Engagement With International Law And Organization, Peter G. Danchin
Beyond Rationalism And Instrumentalism: The Case For Rethinking U.S. Engagement With International Law And Organization, Peter G. Danchin
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay advances an argument for rethinking the current terms of engagement of U.S. foreign policy with international law and institutions so as to avoid the current two extremes of power politics and imperial moralizing. First, it is necessary to distinguish between force and the status of political domination on the one hand, and consensus and the status of normative meaning on the other. While it may be possible for a superpower to exercise factual authority and control over foreign states and peoples through sheer assertions of force and will, the attainability of such a situation should not be confused …
Rethinking "Effective Remedies": Remedial Deterrence In International Courts, Sonja Starr
Rethinking "Effective Remedies": Remedial Deterrence In International Courts, Sonja Starr
Faculty Scholarship
One of the bedrock principles of contemporary international law is that victims of human rights violations have a right to an “effective remedy.” International courts usually hold that effective remedies must at least make the victim whole, and they sometimes adopt even stronger remedial rules for particular categories of human rights violations. Moreover, courts have refused to permit departure from these rules on the basis of competing social interests. Human rights scholars have not questioned this approach, frequently pushing for even stronger judicial remedies for rights violations. Yet in many cases, strong and inflexible remedial rules can perversely undermine human …