Du bon usage de la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise. Quelques réflexions sur la jurisprudence belge relative aux signes convictionnels
(2021) Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques — Vol. 85, n° 2, p. 151-174 (2020)
Files
RIEJ_085_0151.pdf
Open Access - Adobe PDF
- 452.91 KB
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- (en) It is not uncommon that, when they are called upon to rule on one or other question concerning the relationship between the State and Religion (the problem of the wearing of conspicuous religious signs in schools, in the civil service, etc.), national judges often refer to the positions – in this case rather self-restraint – developed on this point by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This « Strasbourg reflex », usually praised as a gesture of legal openness, is however problematic on two counts. First, the Strasbourg fiat is in fact awarded with the benefit of a broad « national margin of appreciation ». The import of this margin in the reasoning of the domestic judge is, as such, meaningless. Moreover, this benevolent Strasbourg jurisprudence does not constitute the sole legal horizon of domestic judges: they must in fact be open to the quasi-UN jurisprudence which, on the themes concerned, is much less « tolerant ». Developing this twofold argument, the contribution will be part of a reflection on multi-level legal governance in the field of human rights.
- Affiliations
Citations
Van Drooghenbroeck, S. (2021). Du bon usage de la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise. Quelques réflexions sur la jurisprudence belge relative aux signes convictionnels. Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, 85(2), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.3917/riej.085.0151 (Original work published 2020)