公平有什么关系?公平机会、实践依赖和宗教自由权

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Sune Lægaard
{"title":"公平有什么关系?公平机会、实践依赖和宗教自由权","authors":"Sune Lægaard","doi":"10.1007/s12142-023-00709-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the <i>European Convention of Human Rights</i> protects acts of religious observance. Such protection can clash with other considerations, including laws aimed at protecting other state interests. Religious freedom therefore requires an account of when the right should lead to exemptions from other laws and when the right can legitimately be limited. Alan Patten has proposed a Fair Opportunity view of the normative logic of religious liberty. But Patten’s view faces several problems. The normative work in his view is mainly done by added accounts of reasonable claims and of justifiability. So, the Fair Opportunity view in itself does not provide a normative criterion. Defenses of the Fair Opportunity view must therefore turn on the theoretical preferability of its structural features. But the Fair Opportunity view has the wrong form to capture the right to freedom of religion. The form of the right to freedom of religion is due to how its point is to address how states limit the liberty of citizens. Given a practice dependent approach, which assigns importance to the point and purpose of the right to freedom of religion, Patten’s theory is thus problematic.</p>","PeriodicalId":45171,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Review","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What’s Fairness Got to Do with it? Fair Opportunity, Practice Dependence, and the Right to Freedom of Religion\",\"authors\":\"Sune Lægaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12142-023-00709-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the <i>European Convention of Human Rights</i> protects acts of religious observance. Such protection can clash with other considerations, including laws aimed at protecting other state interests. Religious freedom therefore requires an account of when the right should lead to exemptions from other laws and when the right can legitimately be limited. Alan Patten has proposed a Fair Opportunity view of the normative logic of religious liberty. But Patten’s view faces several problems. The normative work in his view is mainly done by added accounts of reasonable claims and of justifiability. So, the Fair Opportunity view in itself does not provide a normative criterion. Defenses of the Fair Opportunity view must therefore turn on the theoretical preferability of its structural features. But the Fair Opportunity view has the wrong form to capture the right to freedom of religion. The form of the right to freedom of religion is due to how its point is to address how states limit the liberty of citizens. Given a practice dependent approach, which assigns importance to the point and purpose of the right to freedom of religion, Patten’s theory is thus problematic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights Review\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-023-00709-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-023-00709-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

例如,《欧洲人权公约》规定的宗教自由权保护宗教仪式。这种保护可能会与其他考虑相冲突,包括旨在保护其他国家利益的法律。因此,宗教自由需要说明,什么情况下宗教自由权利应导致其他法律的豁免,什么情况下宗教自由权利可以合法地受到限制。艾伦-帕滕就宗教自由的规范逻辑提出了 "公平机会 "观点。但彭定康的观点面临几个问题。他的观点中的规范性工作主要是通过增加对合理要求和正当性的描述来完成的。因此,"公平机会 "观点本身并没有提供规范性标准。因此,为 "公平机会观 "辩护的依据必须是其结构特征在理论上的可取性。但是,"公平机会观 "以错误的形式诠释了宗教自由权。宗教自由权的形式是由其如何解决国家如何限制公民自由的问题决定的。帕滕的理论从实践出发,重视宗教自由权的意义和目的,因此是有问题的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What’s Fairness Got to Do with it? Fair Opportunity, Practice Dependence, and the Right to Freedom of Religion

The right to religious liberty as for instance set out in the European Convention of Human Rights protects acts of religious observance. Such protection can clash with other considerations, including laws aimed at protecting other state interests. Religious freedom therefore requires an account of when the right should lead to exemptions from other laws and when the right can legitimately be limited. Alan Patten has proposed a Fair Opportunity view of the normative logic of religious liberty. But Patten’s view faces several problems. The normative work in his view is mainly done by added accounts of reasonable claims and of justifiability. So, the Fair Opportunity view in itself does not provide a normative criterion. Defenses of the Fair Opportunity view must therefore turn on the theoretical preferability of its structural features. But the Fair Opportunity view has the wrong form to capture the right to freedom of religion. The form of the right to freedom of religion is due to how its point is to address how states limit the liberty of citizens. Given a practice dependent approach, which assigns importance to the point and purpose of the right to freedom of religion, Patten’s theory is thus problematic.

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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Human Rights Review is an interdisciplinary journal which provides a scholarly forum in which human rights issues and their underlying empirical, theoretical and philosophical foundations are explored. The journal seeks to place human rights practices and policies within a theoretical perspective in order to link empirical research to broader human rights issues. Human Rights Review welcomes submissions from all academic areas in order to foster a wide-ranging dialogue on issues of concern to both the academic and the policy-making communities. The journal is receptive to submissions drawing from diverse methodologies and approaches including case studies, quantitative analysis, legal scholarship and philosophical discourse in order to provide a comprehensive discussion concerning human rights issues.
×
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