Discriminación por orientación sexual y derechos de la seguridad social en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte IDH) y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH). ¿Una historia de divergencias?

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Laura Clérico
{"title":"Discriminación por orientación sexual y derechos de la seguridad social en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte IDH) y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH). ¿Una historia de divergencias?","authors":"Laura Clérico","doi":"10.22187/RFD2019N47A5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For some years now, universal and regional human rights protection systems converge in the extension of the grounds for prohibiting discrimination, as in the case of sexual orientation. However, a micro-study of the similarities and divergences in the equality test for differentiated treatment by social orientation in the access to social security rights, demonstrate the divergences between the Inter-American Court and the ECtHR. Thus, this paper argues that the ECHR assumes a conditioned incrementalist approach regarding the recognition of LGBTI rights against the categorical incrementalist approach of the Inter-American Court as a speed adopter. The lack of a factual European consensus on the claim and the granting of a wide margin of state appreciation gain primacy in the face of the equality test in the ECtHR. On the contrary, the IACtHR applies an examination of intensive equality if the differential treatment is based on the sexual orientation of the persons although there is no Inter-American consensus on the subject. The article concludes thus differentiating two types of human rights adjudication approach.","PeriodicalId":53805,"journal":{"name":"Revista de la Facultad de Derecho","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de la Facultad de Derecho","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22187/RFD2019N47A5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

For some years now, universal and regional human rights protection systems converge in the extension of the grounds for prohibiting discrimination, as in the case of sexual orientation. However, a micro-study of the similarities and divergences in the equality test for differentiated treatment by social orientation in the access to social security rights, demonstrate the divergences between the Inter-American Court and the ECtHR. Thus, this paper argues that the ECHR assumes a conditioned incrementalist approach regarding the recognition of LGBTI rights against the categorical incrementalist approach of the Inter-American Court as a speed adopter. The lack of a factual European consensus on the claim and the granting of a wide margin of state appreciation gain primacy in the face of the equality test in the ECtHR. On the contrary, the IACtHR applies an examination of intensive equality if the differential treatment is based on the sexual orientation of the persons although there is no Inter-American consensus on the subject. The article concludes thus differentiating two types of human rights adjudication approach.
美洲人权法院(IDH)和欧洲人权法院(echr)判例法中的性取向歧视和社会保障权利。分歧的历史?
几年来,普遍和区域人权保护制度在扩大禁止歧视的理由方面趋于一致,例如在性取向问题上。然而,对在获得社会保障权利方面按社会取向区别对待的平等测试的异同进行的微观研究表明,美洲法院和欧洲人权法院之间存在分歧。因此,本文认为,《欧洲人权公约》在承认LGBTI权利方面采取了一种有条件的渐进主义方法,而美洲法院作为快速采纳者采取了绝对渐进主义方法。在欧洲人权法院的平等测试面前,欧洲对这一主张缺乏事实共识,并给予了很大的国家升值幅度,这一点占据了首要地位。相反,如果差别待遇是基于个人的性取向,尽管美洲国家在这一问题上没有达成共识,但IACtHR适用于对严格平等的审查。文章最后对两种类型的人权裁决方法进行了区分。
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
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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