25 research outputs found
Being tolerated and being discriminated against:Links to psychological well-being through threatened social identity needs
We investigated whether and how the experience of being tolerated and of being discriminated against are associated with psychological wellâbeing in three correlational studies among three stigmatized groups in Turkey (LGBTI group members, people with disabilities, and ethnic Kurds, total N = 862). Perceived threat to social identity needs (esteem, meaning, belonging, efficacy, and continuity) was examined as a mediator in these associations. Structural equation models showed evidence for the detrimental role of both toleration and discrimination experiences on positive and negative psychological wellâbeing through higher levels of threatened social identity needs. A miniâmeta analysis showed small to moderate effect sizes and toleration was associated with lower positive wellâbeing through threatened needs among all three stigmatized groups
Balancing, Proportionality, and Constitutional Rights
In the theory and practice of constitutional adjudication, proportionality review plays a crucial role. At a theoretical level, it lies at core of the debate on rights adjudication; in judicial practice, it is a widespread decision-making model characterizing the action of constitutional, supra-national and international courts. Despite its circulation and centrality in contemporary legal discourse, proportionality in rights-adjudication is still extremely controversial. It raises normative questionsâconcerning its justification and limitsâand descriptive questionsâregarding its nature and distinctive features. The chapter addresses both orders of questions.
Part I centres on the justification of proportionality review, the connection between proportionality, balancing and theories of rights and the critical aspects of this connection.
Part II identifies and analyses the different forms of proportionality both in review, as a template for rights-adjudication, and of review, as a way of defining the scope and limits of adjudication