Stakeholder jurisprudence: the new way in human rights

Making use of United Nations (U.N.) materials and documents, Anja Matwijkiw and Bronik Matwijkiw argue that the organization – in 2004 – converted to a stakeholder jurisprudence for human rights. However, references to “stakeholders” may both be made in the context of narrow stakeholder theory and broad stakeholder theory. Since the U.N. does not specify its commitment by naming the theory it credits for its conversion, the authors of the article embark on a comparative analysis, so as to be able to try the two frameworks for fit. The hypothesis is that it is the philosophy and methodology of broad stakeholder theory that best matches the norms and strategies of the U.N. While this is the case, certain challenges nevertheless present themselves. As a consequence of these, the U.N. has to – as a minimum – take things under renewed consideration

The Burqa Ban: Legal Precursors for Denmark, American Experiences and Experiments, and Philosophical and Critical Examinations

As the title of the article suggests, “The Burqa Ban”: Legal Precursors for Denmark, American Experiences and Experiments, and Philosophical and Critical Examinations, the authors embark on a factually investigative as well as a reflective response. More precisely, they use The 2018 Danish “Burqa Ban”: Joining a European Trend and Sending a National Message (published as a concurrent but separate article in this issue of INTERNATIONAL STUDIES JOURNAL) as a platform for further analysis and discussion of different perspectives. These include case-law at the international level while focusing attention on recent rulings and judicial reasoning by the ECtHR and the ECJ; critical thought-experiments in religion, morality, human rights, and the democratic public space; a contextualized account of burqa-wearing interventions by federal and state governments and, moreover, various courts in the United States; and philosophical commentary and, in some instances, criticism of the Danish and/or European (French, etc.) approach. The different contributions have different aims. The section on case-law at the international level reports on those central judgments that, in effect, helped to pave the path for the Kingdom of Denmark’s burqa ban. Concerning the concurring judges at the ECtHR, the opinions served to uphold a preexisting ban and to grant a wide margin of appreciation to the national authorities, thereby limiting the Court’s own review. As regards to the ECJ, the legality of company rules that contain a policy of neutrality for the workplace was examined, with a similar outcome. The authors who discuss religion, morality, human rights and the democratic public space are endeavoring to, respectively, appeal to ethics as a testing stone for law and to both challenge and address several forms of “expressivist worry” in connection with face veils. In doing so, the authors ask a number of thought-provoking questions that hopefully will inspire public policymakers to careful analysis. While the section that is devoted to American perspectives highlights a comprehensive survey of political and legal responses to, in particular, full-face veils like the burqa, the relevant author also incorporates public perceptions and, in the course of examining these, draws a parallel to “the fate” of the hoodie. The constitutionality of burqa-wearing in America, so it also appears, is partially an open question, but differentiating between religious, political, or personal reasons is a de jure premise. Given that the Danish legislators who drafted law L 219 to ban burqa-wearing in public places rely on a reference to political Islam, they relegate religious and personal reasons to the private domain, thereby also adopting secularism as a premise. This is explored in the last author response of the article, more precisely, in an account of the underlying materialism that, in turn, is applied to Muslim women. If policymakers and legislators engaged in Thinking Things Through exercises, they could, as a minimum, avoid law-making strategies that are not in the spirit of the theory they themselves invoke, albeit tacitly. While the aim of, as it were, arresting culturally self-contradicting legislators is unique for the section in question, all the authors who contribute to the joint research project have one end-goal in common, namely to inform about important perspectives while at the same time opening up for parameters for (more) fruitful, constructive and (if need be) critical debate in the future. With this in mind, four recommendations are presented by the research director for the project. Legally, politically, socially and culturally, conflict-resolution should not translate the relationship between rulers and the ruled into a separation ideology, an instance of controllers versus the controlled. All things being equal, that is the objective limit for a democratic society

The dangers of the obvious but often disregarded details in the international criminal law demarcation debate : Norm-integration and the triple-thesis 'argument'

When responses to international crimes are managed in terms of post-conflict justice, this event may end 'the demarcation debate' before it has begun, thereby rendering it superfluous among legal scholars. This is to say that the transition from theory to reality arguably has the effect of cancelling any sharp distinction between international criminal law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as extending international criminal justice into the moral territory. Certainly, this is a premise for the dual-aspect defense of those rights that help to explain the non-separation. However, to the extent that the defense discords with traditional assumptions, relevant aspects of pro-separation reasoning must be considered. These are accommodated under the triple-thesis whereby the unequal status of different (rights-)categories limit norm-integration. The author's account of the competing programs shows a series of flaws in the case of the triple-thesis doctrine, amounting to a vicious circle 'argument'

Law, Cultural Studies and the "Burqa Ban" Trend. An Interdisciplinary Handbook

"Law, Cultural Studies and the 'Burqa Ban' Trend: An Interdisciplinary Handbook offers an in-depth and multi-perspective account of the 'burqa ban' trend. With a focus on Europe and America, this book examines the law at national and international levels. Its interdisciplinary approach encompasses ethics, gender studies, philosophy, political science and religion to provide much needed insights into value and identity politics, diversity, discrimination and human rights, in addition to the discussions surrounding the courts' contradictory judgments. The book also includes a first-hand account by a Muslim burqa-wearer, alongside contributions by leading academic researchers and legal professionals that provide food for thought that can benefit future discussions among scholars, students, legal professionals and policymakers. Analytical work is supplemented with, among other aspects, examinations of the frameworks that derive from dialectical thinking or ideas and theories about democracy, autonomy and male and white desire to control, conquer and dominate."--Back cover."The May 21-22, 2020 Raoul Wallenberg Institute Roundtable - The legal 'burqa ban' trend : criminalizing the trivial or seperating national and international law?"--Page vii.Includes bibliographical references and index."Law, Cultural Studies and the 'Burqa Ban' Trend: An Interdisciplinary Handbook offers an in-depth and multi-perspective account of the 'burqa ban' trend. With a focus on Europe and America, this book examines the law at national and international levels. Its interdisciplinary approach encompasses ethics, gender studies, philosophy, political science and religion to provide much needed insights into value and identity politics, diversity, discrimination and human rights, in addition to the discussions surrounding the courts' contradictory judgments. The book also includes a first-hand account by a Muslim burqa-wearer, alongside contributions by leading academic researchers and legal professionals that provide food for thought that can benefit future discussions among scholars, students, legal professionals and policymakers. Analytical work is supplemented with, among other aspects, examinations of the frameworks that derive from dialectical thinking or ideas and theories about democracy, autonomy and male and white desire to control, conquer and dominate."--Back cover