墨西哥和1981年《联合国消除基于宗教或信仰原因的一切形式的不容忍和歧视宣言》

J. L. Fernández
{"title":"墨西哥和1981年《联合国消除基于宗教或信仰原因的一切形式的不容忍和歧视宣言》","authors":"J. L. Fernández","doi":"10.1163/187103107x219091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I. INTRODUCTION Within the realm of human rights, it is extremely difficult to determine the proper scope of the freedoms of conscience, of belief, and of religion and to identify those freedoms' progress and achievements in a general and versatile manner for all nations. The name of this freedom cannot easily be reduced to a single word-for that reason, international textbooks resort to the expression \"freedom of conscience, of convictions, and of religion.\" However, for purposes of brevity we speak simply of \"religious freedom,\" called \"freedom of worship\" or \"freedom of conscience\" in days past. Criticisms pointing out the deficiencies of all these terms are pointless. Therefore, we should stop pointing out this enormous difficulty and try to agree on a simple and understandable expression for all. To this end, in 1981, the United Nations (\"U.N.\") adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (\"1981 Declaration\" or \"Declaration\").1 The U.N.'s effort, which had the purpose of establishing a minimum consensus regarding religious freedom that everyone could understand, is very commendable. This effort, incidentally, was the result of more than two decades of important work,2 which I will not describe here because it is beyond the scope of this article. IMAGE FORMULA5 However, the U.N. fell short of realizing its purpose by failing to formulate a convention that would put into practice the principles of the Declaration. The Declaration does not impose an international legal obligation on the signatory nations. Had the U.N. formulated a corresponding convention, the member states could have bound themselves legally to adequately respect religious freedom under the precise terms of the Declaration. However, the U.N. has not yet fulfilled this task, despite the passage of twenty years since the Declaration was issued. The purpose of this article is to describe the beginnings, progress, and current state of religious freedom in Mexico. Part II describes the attitudes of the Mexican government toward religion during the past century. Part III describes Mexico's attitude and behavior regarding the Declaration, pointing out that Mexico purported, in the international arena, to be much more in favor of religious freedom than it really was (in the domestic arena). Parts IV and V point out that despite several pro-religion reforms that were made to Mexico's Constitution in 1992, much necessary progress remains. II. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN MEXICO Mexico, a country that has for decades proclaimed itself a liberal and democratic state, possesses a very lamentable characteristic: the restriction of religious freedom. This restriction produced a precarious situation in the country between 1917 and 1992. The constitution that was in effect at that time included several provisions that repressed religious freedom. Even so, it would not have been inconsistent for Mexican authorities to approve the Declaration-- even though the Declaration contradicted (and to a certain extent continues to contradict) the express text of the federal constitution of Mexico. Mexican authorities often deviated from the repressive mandates of the constitutional text. A. An Overview For many historical, political, and social reasons, the original text of the 1917 Mexican Constitution contained a series of principles that, de jure, came to limit religious freedom enormously.3 IMAGE FORMULA11 Nevertheless, during the seventy-five years that such principles were in effect (they were radically reformed in 1992), they were rarely enforced, and an attempt to put them into practice caused a civil war from 1926 to 1929.4 I will review some, but not all, of the difficulties Mexico suffered during those seventy-five years due to its enforcement or nonenforcement of constitutional Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 (the articles that restricted religious freedoms). …","PeriodicalId":142428,"journal":{"name":"BYU Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mexico and the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief\",\"authors\":\"J. L. Fernández\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/187103107x219091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I. INTRODUCTION Within the realm of human rights, it is extremely difficult to determine the proper scope of the freedoms of conscience, of belief, and of religion and to identify those freedoms' progress and achievements in a general and versatile manner for all nations. The name of this freedom cannot easily be reduced to a single word-for that reason, international textbooks resort to the expression \\\"freedom of conscience, of convictions, and of religion.\\\" However, for purposes of brevity we speak simply of \\\"religious freedom,\\\" called \\\"freedom of worship\\\" or \\\"freedom of conscience\\\" in days past. Criticisms pointing out the deficiencies of all these terms are pointless. Therefore, we should stop pointing out this enormous difficulty and try to agree on a simple and understandable expression for all. To this end, in 1981, the United Nations (\\\"U.N.\\\") adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (\\\"1981 Declaration\\\" or \\\"Declaration\\\").1 The U.N.'s effort, which had the purpose of establishing a minimum consensus regarding religious freedom that everyone could understand, is very commendable. This effort, incidentally, was the result of more than two decades of important work,2 which I will not describe here because it is beyond the scope of this article. IMAGE FORMULA5 However, the U.N. fell short of realizing its purpose by failing to formulate a convention that would put into practice the principles of the Declaration. The Declaration does not impose an international legal obligation on the signatory nations. Had the U.N. formulated a corresponding convention, the member states could have bound themselves legally to adequately respect religious freedom under the precise terms of the Declaration. However, the U.N. has not yet fulfilled this task, despite the passage of twenty years since the Declaration was issued. The purpose of this article is to describe the beginnings, progress, and current state of religious freedom in Mexico. Part II describes the attitudes of the Mexican government toward religion during the past century. Part III describes Mexico's attitude and behavior regarding the Declaration, pointing out that Mexico purported, in the international arena, to be much more in favor of religious freedom than it really was (in the domestic arena). Parts IV and V point out that despite several pro-religion reforms that were made to Mexico's Constitution in 1992, much necessary progress remains. II. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN MEXICO Mexico, a country that has for decades proclaimed itself a liberal and democratic state, possesses a very lamentable characteristic: the restriction of religious freedom. This restriction produced a precarious situation in the country between 1917 and 1992. The constitution that was in effect at that time included several provisions that repressed religious freedom. Even so, it would not have been inconsistent for Mexican authorities to approve the Declaration-- even though the Declaration contradicted (and to a certain extent continues to contradict) the express text of the federal constitution of Mexico. Mexican authorities often deviated from the repressive mandates of the constitutional text. A. An Overview For many historical, political, and social reasons, the original text of the 1917 Mexican Constitution contained a series of principles that, de jure, came to limit religious freedom enormously.3 IMAGE FORMULA11 Nevertheless, during the seventy-five years that such principles were in effect (they were radically reformed in 1992), they were rarely enforced, and an attempt to put them into practice caused a civil war from 1926 to 1929.4 I will review some, but not all, of the difficulties Mexico suffered during those seventy-five years due to its enforcement or nonenforcement of constitutional Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 (the articles that restricted religious freedoms). …\",\"PeriodicalId\":142428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BYU Law Review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BYU Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/187103107x219091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/187103107x219091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在人权领域内,要确定良心、信仰和宗教自由的适当范围,并以普遍和通用的方式确定所有国家这些自由的进步和成就,是极其困难的。这种自由的名称不能轻易地简化为一个词——因此,国际教科书使用“良心自由、信念自由和宗教自由”的表述。不过,为简洁起见,我们简单地说“宗教自由”,过去称为“礼拜自由”或“良心自由”。批评指出所有这些术语的不足是毫无意义的。因此,我们应该停止指出这个巨大的困难,并努力就一个简单易懂的表达达成一致。为此,联合国于1981年通过了《消除基于宗教或信仰原因的一切形式的不容忍和歧视宣言》(“1981年宣言”或“宣言”)联合国美国的努力,其目的是在宗教自由方面建立一个人人都能理解的最低限度的共识,这是非常值得赞扬的。顺便说一句,这一努力是20多年来重要工作的结果,我不会在这里描述,因为它超出了本文的范围。然而,联合国未能制定一项公约,将《宣言》的原则付诸实践,未能实现其目的。《宣言》并未将国际法律义务强加给签署国。如果联合国制定相应的公约,成员国就可以在法律上约束自己,充分尊重《宣言》的具体条款。然而,尽管《宣言》发表已经过去了20年,联合国仍未完成这一任务。本文的目的是描述墨西哥宗教自由的开始、进展和现状。第二部分描述了过去一个世纪墨西哥政府对宗教的态度。第三部分描述了墨西哥对《宣言》的态度和行为,指出墨西哥在国际舞台上声称比它(在国内舞台上)实际更支持宗教自由。第四和第五部分指出,尽管1992年对墨西哥宪法进行了几次支持宗教的改革,但仍有许多必要的进展。2几十年来,墨西哥一直宣称自己是一个自由民主的国家,但它有一个非常可悲的特点:对宗教自由的限制。这种限制在1917年至1992年期间造成了该国的不稳定局势。当时生效的宪法包含了一些压制宗教自由的条款。即便如此,墨西哥当局批准《宣言》也不是不一致的——尽管《宣言》与墨西哥联邦宪法的明文相矛盾(在一定程度上继续与之相矛盾)。墨西哥当局经常背离宪法文本的压制性规定。由于许多历史、政治和社会原因,1917年墨西哥宪法的原始文本包含了一系列原则,这些原则在法律上极大地限制了宗教自由然而,在这些原则生效的75年里(1992年进行了彻底的改革),它们很少得到执行,而将它们付诸实践的企图导致了1926年至1929年的内战。我将回顾墨西哥在这75年里因执行或不执行宪法第3、5、24、27和130条(限制宗教自由的条款)而遭受的一些困难,但不是全部。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mexico and the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
I. INTRODUCTION Within the realm of human rights, it is extremely difficult to determine the proper scope of the freedoms of conscience, of belief, and of religion and to identify those freedoms' progress and achievements in a general and versatile manner for all nations. The name of this freedom cannot easily be reduced to a single word-for that reason, international textbooks resort to the expression "freedom of conscience, of convictions, and of religion." However, for purposes of brevity we speak simply of "religious freedom," called "freedom of worship" or "freedom of conscience" in days past. Criticisms pointing out the deficiencies of all these terms are pointless. Therefore, we should stop pointing out this enormous difficulty and try to agree on a simple and understandable expression for all. To this end, in 1981, the United Nations ("U.N.") adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief ("1981 Declaration" or "Declaration").1 The U.N.'s effort, which had the purpose of establishing a minimum consensus regarding religious freedom that everyone could understand, is very commendable. This effort, incidentally, was the result of more than two decades of important work,2 which I will not describe here because it is beyond the scope of this article. IMAGE FORMULA5 However, the U.N. fell short of realizing its purpose by failing to formulate a convention that would put into practice the principles of the Declaration. The Declaration does not impose an international legal obligation on the signatory nations. Had the U.N. formulated a corresponding convention, the member states could have bound themselves legally to adequately respect religious freedom under the precise terms of the Declaration. However, the U.N. has not yet fulfilled this task, despite the passage of twenty years since the Declaration was issued. The purpose of this article is to describe the beginnings, progress, and current state of religious freedom in Mexico. Part II describes the attitudes of the Mexican government toward religion during the past century. Part III describes Mexico's attitude and behavior regarding the Declaration, pointing out that Mexico purported, in the international arena, to be much more in favor of religious freedom than it really was (in the domestic arena). Parts IV and V point out that despite several pro-religion reforms that were made to Mexico's Constitution in 1992, much necessary progress remains. II. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN MEXICO Mexico, a country that has for decades proclaimed itself a liberal and democratic state, possesses a very lamentable characteristic: the restriction of religious freedom. This restriction produced a precarious situation in the country between 1917 and 1992. The constitution that was in effect at that time included several provisions that repressed religious freedom. Even so, it would not have been inconsistent for Mexican authorities to approve the Declaration-- even though the Declaration contradicted (and to a certain extent continues to contradict) the express text of the federal constitution of Mexico. Mexican authorities often deviated from the repressive mandates of the constitutional text. A. An Overview For many historical, political, and social reasons, the original text of the 1917 Mexican Constitution contained a series of principles that, de jure, came to limit religious freedom enormously.3 IMAGE FORMULA11 Nevertheless, during the seventy-five years that such principles were in effect (they were radically reformed in 1992), they were rarely enforced, and an attempt to put them into practice caused a civil war from 1926 to 1929.4 I will review some, but not all, of the difficulties Mexico suffered during those seventy-five years due to its enforcement or nonenforcement of constitutional Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 (the articles that restricted religious freedoms). …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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