About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 Religion & Hum. Rts. 1 (2020-2021)

handle is hein.intyb/relhr0015 and id is 1 raw text is: Religon RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 15 2020) 1-2 \2.._0. <iunan BRILL Rights N IJ H O F F brill.com/rhrs Editorial Limitations to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Theory and Practice Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in universal and regional human rights treaties. It enables persons from all be- liefs and none to express themselves according to their conscience. However, freedom of religion or belief is also a qualified right, meaning that in excep- tional circumstances-and in strict accordance with the limitations regime- manifestation of religion or belief may be limited by State authorities. The rationale for the need to allow for limitations to manifestation of religion or belief is generally well understood by scholars, practitioners, and even lay peo- ple, so why does it prove so controversial in practice? Despite the extensive number of books and articles on freedom of reli- gion or belief and its limitations, domestic and supranational courts, as well as UN treaty-based bodies still struggle to translate this theory into practice. Therefore, the articles in this special issue narrowed down precisely on the point of how various domestic and international bodies have imposed limita- tions on freedom of religion in practice. These articles stem from the initia- tive of the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief inviting experts on several jurisdictions, in order to evaluate together whether the theoretical knowledge about limitations to freedom of religion or belief was applied in practice. The results are staggering and can be found in detail in all articles in these special editions. Broadly speaking, three main issues emerged from the studies. First, only a few cases dealing with limitations to freedom of religion or belief reach domestic courts, and an even smaller fraction of these cases are decided by international bodies. Second, when cases are decided by courts, there is a no- ticeable discrepancy between theory and practice. Courts tend to privilege majoritarian and traditional religious groups over members of minority reli- gious and non-religious groups. The grounds for limiting freedom of religion or belief are expanded in practice, and general issues regarding the rights of vulnerable persons are often overlooked. Thus, despite limitations being ex- ceptional in nature, they become the rule in many contexts. Third, the range of justifications for limitations is overly wide. Though every case is suigeneris, several decisions extrapolate the framework provided by international law on the topic, leading to a lack of legal certainty in this field. © NAZILA GHANEA AND THIAGO ALVES PINTO, 2020 I DOI:10.1163/18710328-BJA10011 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most