{"title":"《欧洲人权公约》第9条规定的思想、良心和宗教自由的欣赏范围","authors":"Konstantina Alexopoulou","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwac014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Margin of Appreciation in Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion under Article 9 of ECHR\",\"authors\":\"Konstantina Alexopoulou\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwac014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Margin of Appreciation in Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion under Article 9 of ECHR
This article analyses the manner in which the margin of appreciation has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in Article 9 cases. As a principle of subsidiarity European Convention States Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation but its scope varies according to particular principles. It is generally certain, when a proportionality test applies (eg concerning proselytism, places and buildings of worship, legal recognition of religious communities, prisoners’ rights), narrow, when the Court has already formulated specific interpretational criteria (eg concerning State’s interference with the internal affairs/dissolution of a religious community or restrictions sought by religious employers), or wide, when there is no widespread consensus and State authorities are in a better place to determine on the matter (eg levying of church taxes, freedom of religion in workplace, public places, and educational institutions). This article appraises the rationale and circumstances which produce particular outcomes with a view to increasing predictability and consistent practice by States.
期刊介绍:
Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.