Lautsi vs. Italy: Questioning the Majoritarian Premise
in 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its seminal decision in the Lautsi vs. Italy case, arguing that the requirement in Italian law that all public schools will display crucifixes in each classroom does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision gave r...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2015]
|
| In: |
Politics and religion
Year: 2015, Volume: 8, Issue: 3, Pages: 565-587 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | in 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its seminal decision in the Lautsi vs. Italy case, arguing that the requirement in Italian law that all public schools will display crucifixes in each classroom does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision gave rise to a storm of reactions. The goal of this article is to argue, that the ECHR used majoritarianism in an under-theorized way and/or unattractive way, and that this usage of the concept can be identified in other cases as well (see the highly controversial Dahlab vs. Swiss, ECHR). Demonstrating the procedural, monopoly based and circularity problems within the ECHR decision point to potential ways to criticize the court decision, without taking sides in the heated and highly divisive debate between so called neutrality supporters and (roughly) endorsed church majoritarian supporters, sides of the debate surrounding Lautsi. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1755-0491 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Politics and religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S1755048315000279 |