This article explores the problem of persecution of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (HTI) in Russia through the lens of a clash between the state’s security agenda and the human rights defence agenda of civil society actors. It aims to shed more light on the dynamics of the securitization-desecuritization ‘tug of war’ between law enforcement agencies and human rights watch groups which manifested itself in their conflicting framings of this transnational Islamist movement in the context of Russia’s ongoing campaign against terrorism and extremism. Drawing on court documents, legislative acts and statements of public officials, this study looks into the discursive construction of HTI as a key terrorist threat to Russian society. At the same time, it demonstrates how the state policies of ‘maximising’ the danger coming from HTI were countered by major human rights organisations attempting to reduce the intensity of the movement’s securitization even despite its alleged links to terrorism.
This article focuses on the relationship between religious, racial and ethnic diversity and its scientific, political and juridical configurations. Our aim is to understand how dominant perceptions of ethnic-racial diversity, which can be apprehended through official instruments such as census surveys, are connected to the production of religious diversity and its political and legal governance in Brazil and Argentina. Our hypothesis is that race and ethnic demarcations are crucial in the political and legal process of definition of what can be categorized as a religious practice. We will analyze the constitutional framework historically given to religious freedom and ethnic-racial diversity to demonstrate this connection. How racial and religious diversity is perceived and categorized expresses itself in State responses to control it through State policies. We assume that the differences between these countries in dealing with religious and non-religious diversity strains in various ways the relations between freedom and equality regimes.
This article discusses the right of access to a court in the most recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, more particularly the application of the so-called Eskelinen-test in the context of cases concerning domestic Judges. The Court appears to have established a new approach to this test, which considerably raises the bar to exclude Judges from access to a court when disputes about their status or career are concerned. First, the article discusses this new approach, suggesting that the reason for it can be found in the current rule of law landscape in Europe and highlighting its potential for future rule of law related cases. Yet, it equally points out how the test gives the final say in disputes about the status or career of Judges to Judges themselves, which creates potential issues of internal judicial independence, and may skew sensitive systems of balance of powers.
In Canada, consulting with Indigenous communities over recourse projects, the Crown sometimes avoids critical engagement with them, holding to the same arguments and counterarguments through regulatory and hearing stages. Such hollow moves, produced under the Crown’s rules, become embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and pass unnoticed. To detect them, I apply Argument Continuities (ac s) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. ac s are a set of the same arguments and counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to dismiss opposing arguments. ac s have a specific life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing the cost of adopting a certain argument/counterargument over time. I test ac s in two institutionally diverse cases of Indigenous consultations and argue for the contingency of ac s upon the rules of consultations in reasoning exchanges. Determining the evidence availability and allocating the burdens of proof in consultations, rules make it more or less likely for a dominant arguer to rebut opposing arguments with acs.
This paper aims to offer a fresh start for addressing several conundrums relating to hate speech. The method of research combines a conceptual analysis with a possible model for evaluating the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decisions on hate speech. First, drawing on a Gricean account of communication, the argument proposes a working definition of hate speech: hate speech is best understood as a public speech act, aimed at subordinating individuals, which causes harm to targeted groups. Second, the paper offers a taxonomy of the different forms of hate speech, based on their degree of explicitness and detachment from the speaker’s intentions. The most explicit forms of (harmful) hate speech – e.g., racial slurs, fighting words, or overtly sexist remarks – will be distinguished from implicit forms of (harmful) hate speech – e.g., innuendo, insinuation, and irony. Third, the author develops a categorical framework for hate speech that can be used as a standard for evaluating the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The author also discusses three limitations of the model: a) the absence of a European consensus, b) puzzled speakers, and c) difficulty in determining harm.
The concept of sovereignty and the right to self-determination is deeply rooted in international law. This paper examines the historical background of the Ambazonia community’s quest for sovereignty based on the right to self-determination. The article examines Southern Cameroon’s historical trajectory and origins of the Ambazonia movement. This paper sheds light on the dynamics of the Anglophone (Ambazonia) crises, and the response from La République du Cameroun (Cameroon government). The paper underscores that although international law firmly opposes the right of secession, as it leads to dissecting the polity in existing states. It is however argued that the people of Ambazonia have a right to quest for self-determination due to oppression and human rights infringements by La République du Cameroun.
The clamour of the Ambazonia movement for sovereignty is based on the entitlement to political independence, and grievance due to the lack of economic and social development of Southern Cameroon. This quest which has ushered violent acts by the state actors to suppress Ambazonia’s identity and cultural heritage. The finding of the study reveals that Southern Cameroon’s contest for sovereignty and right to self-determination is legal under international law and therefore needs the comity of states to intervene to deescalate the violent acts by La République du Cameroun. The article also examines the international community’s role in the conflict. Particularly, it focuses on the part Nigeria played in the crises and the construction of the friendly relationship between both countries. Further the article proffers recommendations peaceful solutions.
This article examines how judges and lawyers working in international criminal courts see their authority in relation to power exerted by states, international organisations and private actors. We draw together ethnographic research inside the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ictr) and the International Criminal Court (icc) that examined perceptions of the interactions among local, national and international legal regimes and the potential for accomplice liability for arms traders under international criminal law. Overall, we show that the legal actors in these courts routinely understood their power as severely limited by concurrent sites of private and public authority. Building on ideas of legal humility, we argue that this should be understood as ‘selective humility’. This humility demonstrated a reticence among these legal actors about what internationalised courts can achieve while offering an argumentative defence against critiques of this legal practice.