All About That Face (No Trouble?)

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Johanna Buerkert, M. Schut, Lili Szuhai
{"title":"All About That Face (No Trouble?)","authors":"Johanna Buerkert, M. Schut, Lili Szuhai","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Dutch ban on face-covering garments (BFG) has caused a considerable amount of debate in the Netherlands since its entry into force on August 1, 2019. Questions have been raised as to whether this law is discriminatory towards those who wear full-face veils for religious reasons, as these individuals, almost exclusively women, will be excluded from public life based on their religion. Inspired by this debate, this paper analyzes the Dutch BFG from a regional and international law perspective. More specifically, this paper seeks to analyze Dutch BFG in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Additionally, feminist theories play an auxiliary role in specifying CEDAW obligations from a feminist perspective. While the ban may be justified from the point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is problematic from the perspectives of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Further research should therefore investigate this tension to determine how these frameworks can be reconciled while considering that the standard set by the European Court of Human Rights only provides a minimum level of protection.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Dutch ban on face-covering garments (BFG) has caused a considerable amount of debate in the Netherlands since its entry into force on August 1, 2019. Questions have been raised as to whether this law is discriminatory towards those who wear full-face veils for religious reasons, as these individuals, almost exclusively women, will be excluded from public life based on their religion. Inspired by this debate, this paper analyzes the Dutch BFG from a regional and international law perspective. More specifically, this paper seeks to analyze Dutch BFG in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Additionally, feminist theories play an auxiliary role in specifying CEDAW obligations from a feminist perspective. While the ban may be justified from the point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is problematic from the perspectives of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Further research should therefore investigate this tension to determine how these frameworks can be reconciled while considering that the standard set by the European Court of Human Rights only provides a minimum level of protection.
关于那张脸(没问题吗?)
荷兰的口罩禁令自2019年8月1日生效以来,在荷兰引起了相当大的争论。有人质疑这项法律是否歧视那些因宗教原因戴全脸面纱的人,因为这些人,几乎完全是女性,将因其宗教而被排除在公共生活之外。受此启发,本文从区域法和国际法的角度对荷兰BFG进行了分析。更具体地说,本文试图根据《欧洲人权公约》、《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》和《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》来分析荷兰BFG。此外,女权主义理论在从女权主义角度规定《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》义务方面发挥了辅助作用。虽然从《欧洲人权公约》的角度来看,这项禁令可能是合理的,但从《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》和《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》的观点来看,这是有问题的。因此,应进一步研究这种紧张关系,以确定如何协调这些框架,同时考虑到欧洲人权法院制定的标准只提供最低限度的保护。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 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