The Project

Shreya Atrey
{"title":"The Project","authors":"Shreya Atrey","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198848950.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 1 inaugurates the project by setting out the current status of intersectionality in discrimination laws across jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, Canada, and India, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and international human rights treaty bodies. Although each jurisdiction’s tryst with intersectionality has been unique, the survey concludes by pointing out the similarities between the continuing legislative and judicial struggles in redressing intersectional discrimination successfully. This prepares the stage for the current intervention. The chapter goes on to define the central argument of this work and the parameters within which it unfolds. In particular, it explains the choice of comparative jurisdictions and the wide range of materials employed in making a case for intersectional discrimination.","PeriodicalId":115138,"journal":{"name":"Intersectional Discrimination","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intersectional Discrimination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848950.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 1 inaugurates the project by setting out the current status of intersectionality in discrimination laws across jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, Canada, and India, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and international human rights treaty bodies. Although each jurisdiction’s tryst with intersectionality has been unique, the survey concludes by pointing out the similarities between the continuing legislative and judicial struggles in redressing intersectional discrimination successfully. This prepares the stage for the current intervention. The chapter goes on to define the central argument of this work and the parameters within which it unfolds. In particular, it explains the choice of comparative jurisdictions and the wide range of materials employed in making a case for intersectional discrimination.
这个项目
第一章介绍了包括美国、英国、南非、加拿大和印度在内的各个司法管辖区的反歧视法的交叉性现状,以及欧洲人权法院、欧盟法院和国际人权条约机构的判例。尽管每个司法管辖区与交叉性的接触都是独特的,但调查总结指出,在成功纠正交叉性歧视方面,持续的立法和司法斗争之间存在相似之处。这为当前的干预做好了准备。本章接着定义了这部作品的中心论点和它展开的参数。特别是,它解释了比较管辖权的选择和在交叉歧视案件中使用的广泛材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信