Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 5,125 items for :

  • International Law x
  • Brill | Nijhoff x
  • Comparative Law x
  • Primary Language: English x
Clear All
An International Human Rights Analysis
This book investigates the dynamics between international incitement prohibitions and international standards on freedom of religious speech, with a special focus on the potential incitement prohibitions for the protection of the rights of LGBT+ people. To that end, the book seeks to determine if and to what extent sexual orientation and gender identity are protected grounds under international anti-incitement law. Building on that analysis, the book also delves deeper into the particularly controversial and complex issue of religiously-motivated speech against LGBT+ people, a phenomenon engaging both religious speech rights and equality and other rights of LGBT+ people. Drawing on recent international law benchmarking in the area of incitement and complementing this with extensive comparative legal analysis, best practice lessons are presented on how to calibrate free religious expression and the protection of LGBT rights in the pluralist state. Among other findings, the present research rejects a sweeping a priori trump in the form of a ‘scripture defence’ against incitement charges, but rather recommends a context-based risk assessment of speech acts potentially affecting the rights of LGBT+ people.
Challenged Justice: In Pursuit of Judicial Independence is an academic continuation of the previous volumes on judicial Independence edited by Shimon Shetreet, with others: Jules Deschenes, Christopher Forsyth, and Wayne McCormack. All books were published by Brill Nijhoff: Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate (1985), The Culture of Judicial Independence: Conceptual Foundations and Practical Challenges (2012), The Culture of Judicial Independence: Rule of Law and World Peace (2014) and The Culture of Judicial Independence in a Globalised World (2016).
This book offers academic articles by distinguished jurists on judicial independence and judicial process in many jurisdictions including indicators of justice and analysis of international Standards on judicial independence and judicial ethics.
This book examines different approaches by which states characterised by federal or decentralized arrangements reconcile equality and autonomy. In case studies from four continents, leading experts analyse the challenges of ensuring institutional, social and economic equality whilst respecting the competences of regions and the rights of groups.
This book argues that a view has taken root in Africa, which equates state-secularism to the aggressive removal of religion from the public sphere or even state ambivalence towards religious affairs. This view arises from a misguided interpretation of the practice of state-secularism particularly in France, Turkey and the US, which understanding is ill-suited for the sub-Sahara Africa’s state-religion because the region boasts of at least three major religious traditions, African religion, Islam and Christianity, and blanket condemnation of public manifestation of religion or ambivalence towards it may offend the natural flourishing of this trinity and more. The contribution holds that most applications of state-secularism in Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda favour the Christian faith, which during its tumultuous experiences in Europe survived the enlightenment, the reformation and like experiences socialised to co-exist with what are now called secular states. Additionally, due to the long history of Christendoms in Europe, Christian principles penetrated the colonial legal systems that were bequeathed to Africa at independence and the sustenance of the colonial legacy means that the Abrahamic faith has an upper hand in the state-religion relations’ contest. The obvious loser is African religion which has suffered major onslaughts since the colonial days.
Practical and Theoretical Challenges to 21st Century Federalism
Beyond Autonomy forces us to rethink the meaning of autonomy as a central organising pillar of federalism. Can federations exist beyond the autonomy realm designed to promote territorial self-governance and direct representation among various levels of government? How do governments of federal systems interact over the design and implementation of policy in highly topical areas such as security, where the optimal distribution of authority is blurred? Which mechanisms promote the compromise necessary in many of today’s democratic federal systems? How do newly emerging federations in Africa and Asia design federal institutions in order to decrease conflict while promoting national solidarity? How can federal systems protect the rights of non-territorial minorities such as many indigenous peoples?


This paper discusses the Hungarian constitutionalism and the emergency model which can be called an ‘autocratic’ emergency model in which the government’s main aim is to create an emergency regime without real threat. That was the case in Hungary before 2020, but as the new coronavirus flourished the Hungarian constitutionalism and the rule of law withered. As the article asserts the declaration of the state of danger was unconstitutional because human epidemic is not involved in the listing of the constitution. The constitutional concerns have become even more complicated after the acceptance of the “Enabling Act” which gave unconstrained power for the Government. The spirit of Carl Schmitt’s theory is again emerged. As the coronavirus and its immediate effect necessitated extra-legal measures, the threshold between the rule of law and exceptionalism was fading swiftly and legal constitutionalism became a pleasant memory.

In: Review of Central and East European Law
Author: Elizabeth Craig


The precise form of internalization of the provisions of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in domestic law is crucial in ensuring its long-term effectiveness. Experiences in the Western Balkans raise important questions about the role of minority (or community) rights legislation in deeply divided societies. This article uses the case-studies of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and the Republic of North Macedonia to highlight key themes and limitations that have emerged. Comparative analysis reveals a surprising divergence of approaches to internalization in the region. The article further demonstrates that the ‘nation-cum-state paradigm’ remains prevalent, despite the premise of universality. It argues that such legislation can play an important symbolic and practical role, but that legal internalization needs to be seen as an ongoing process. It concludes that attention needs to be given to ensuring the continued particularization and adaptation of such legislation in light of both the limitations and changing circumstances, providing a key lesson also for other divided societies.

In: Review of Central and East European Law
In: Review of Central and East European Law


Ever since it was announced in Madison v. Marbury, and articulated in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine that tends to exclude ‘mega politics’ from judicial check has been a controversial tool of judicial abstention. Not only that it is not universally applied, but it seems also to be losing significance even in countries of its usual influence due to extensive judicialization of ‘mega politics,’ which implies that there is no claim which the courts will not hear. Based on the judicialization of the Kosovo conflict, this paper shows why the doctrine deserves to be revived and even transplanted in jurisdictions outside its usual reach, particularly in disputes regarding real-life unilateral secession.

In: Review of Central and East European Law
Author: Jan Podkowik


The article discusses the concept of personal autonomy as a constitutional fundamental right protected by the Polish Constitution of 1997. Autonomy is not only a constitutional value of an unspecified character but also a right with its own specific normative content. Personal autonomy, also called the right to self-determination, is rooted in natural law. The scope of its constitutional protection is determined and – simultaneously – limited by constitutional standards of an absolute character such as human dignity, non-discrimination, and the like. Autonomy as a constitutional right may be subjected to further restrictions imposed by the legislator in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The legal status of an individual’s right to self determination is thus determined by all the prohibitions and orders resulting directly from the Constitution as well as sub-constitutional statutory provisions which respect the principle of proportionality requirements.

In: Review of Central and East European Law