• A
  • A
  • A
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Обычная версия сайта
Магистратура 2020/2021

Личные и политические права: сравнительный обзор

Статус: Курс по выбору (Публичное право)
Направление: 40.04.01. Юриспруденция
Где читается: Факультет права
Когда читается: 2-й курс, 3, 4 модуль
Формат изучения: без онлайн-курса
Преподаватели: Храмова Татьяна Михайловна
Прогр. обучения: Публичное право
Язык: английский
Кредиты: 4
Контактные часы: 56

Course Syllabus

Abstract

“Personal and Political Rights in Comparative Perspective” is an advanced master’s course which explores the nature and extent of two groups or basic rights – personal and political – in various constitutional jurisdictions. It looks into the approaches developed by the constitutional courts of both young and mature democracies in regards to the protection of fundamental personal and political rights. It develops students’ analytical thinking by engaging them in a comparative study of cases of high controversy related to such rights as human dignity, equality, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and assembly and freedom of association. The course enables students to compare and reflect upon the courts’ reasoning and generate compelling arguments for the benefit of each side of the dispute. The course is designed particularly for students interested in performing comparative research and/or fancying a career in constitutional and human rights litigation. The course is conducted in English.
Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

  • The course aims at enabling the students to analyze and evaluate legal texts (court decisions, legislative acts, international treaties) related to personal and political rights. Specific goals of the course are: to put personal and political rights into a broad legal, political, historical and comparative context and identify their role in a contemporary democratic society; to examine major doctrines and techniques related to striking a balance between personal and political rights and other legitimate interests; to compare and reflect upon alternative approaches of constitutional courts and the European Court of Human Rights to defining the scope of specific personal and political rights; to enable the students to formulate and substantiate arguments favouring and opposing specific restrictions of personal and political rights.
Expected Learning Outcomes

Expected Learning Outcomes

  • Identify and explain the concepts of proportionality, content-based / content-neutral restrictions, horizontal (third-party) effect of constitutional rights, political pluralism, militant democracy, personal autonomy, positive and negative discrimination;
  • Apply theoretical concepts and methodological framework to particular cases on restrictions of personal and political rights;
  • Justify and criticize a legal position on a controversial issue involving the exercise of a right to respect for personal and family life, freedom of conscience, freedom of political communication, freedom of assembly, freedom of political association and a right to equal participation;
  • Professionally communicate – in both oral and written forms – a possible solution to a legal case involving restrictions of personal and political rights.
Course Contents

Course Contents

  • Restrictions of fundamental rights: comparative challenges.
    Personal and political rights as constitutional rights. Approaches to interpretation and classification. The role of constitutional and supranational courts in the protection of fundamental rights. Introduction to comparative method. Controversial nature and challenges in defining the scope of political rights. Lawful and unlawful restrictions of rights. Proportionality and balancing. Cases: ECHR: Case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judgment of 22 December 2009. Applications nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06. US Supreme Court: • Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/case.html; • Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/443/; Germany: BverfG, Beschluss des Ersten Senats vom 7. März 1990, 1 BvR 266/86 und 913/87 http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv081278.html.
  • Dignity and equality .
    Different interpretations of dignity. Right to dignity as an absolute right. Dignity as a “right to rights”. Group dignity. Case study: dignity and the right to respect for gender identity. Dignity and prohibition of discrimination. Formal and substantive equality. Equality, non-discrimination, equal treatment. Positive discrimination. Gender (in)equality in politics: the problem of feminine quotas. Equality in elections. Prohibition of discrimination as an argument in court: burden of proof. Cases: Germany: • BVerfG, Beschluss des Ersten Senats vom 15. Februar 2006 – 1 BvR 357/05 (Aviation Security Act) • BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 10 October 2017 - 1 BvR 2019/16 South Africa: • South African Police Service v. Solidarity obo Barnard [2014] ZACC 23 • President of the Republic of South Africa v. Hugo (CCT11/96), [1997] ZACC 4 Supreme Court of the USA: • Fisher v. the University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016); • Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000). India: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon & Ors, Judgment of 18 November 1974, 1975 AIR 563, 1975 SCR (2) 761. France: Feminine Quotas Cases, Constitutional Council 82-146 DC of 18 November 1982, 2000-429 DC of 30 May 2000. Italy: Constitutional Court judgments no. 422/1995 of 12 September 1995; no. 49/2003 of 10 February 2003; no. 4/2010 of 27 January 2010. Spain: Constitutional Court Judgment No. 12/2008 of 29 January 2008.
  • Right to respect for personal and family life.
    The sphere of private life. Physical and psychological dimensions of private life: reproductive rights, euthanasia, sexual orientation and sexual life. Definitions of a family and family life. Problematic issues: adoption, same-sex marriage, family relations and immigration. Positive and negative obligations of the state to respect private and family life. Cases: ECtHR: • Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy. Judgment of 24 January 2017; • Pini and Others v. Romania, Judgment of 22 June 2004 • Evans v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 10 April 2007 • Koch v. Germany, Judgment of 19 July 2012. USA: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) 135 S. Ct. 2584 South Africa: Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19 Poland: Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 7 October 2015, ref. no. K 12/14.
  • Freedom of religion and belief.
    The scope of freedom of conscience: negative and positive aspects. Religious symbols and clothing. Religious education. Religious holidays. Places of worship. Religious v. artistic freedoms. Obligation to respect religious feelings of others. Cases: ECtHR: • Sekmadienis v Lithuania, Judgment of January 30, 2018 • Lautsi and others v. Italy, Judgment of 18 March 2011 • Kostesky v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Judgment of 13 April 2006 • Communicated case Samodurov and Yerofeyev and Savko v Russia (not yet decided) USA: • Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) • Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) Canada: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47. India: Bijoe Emmanuel and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, (1986) 3 S.C.R. 518.
  • Freedom of political association.
    Political pluralism. Right to association and political competition. Prohibition of political parties and alternative measures to fight the “enemies” of democracy. Political extremism. Direct and indirect funding of political parties. The role of state in financing the activity of political parties. Political parties and media. Cases: Israel: Moshe Neiman et al. v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee For the Eleventh Knesset (1985) EA 2/84. Available at: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/84/020/000/z01/84000020.z01.pdf. Germany: • BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 17 January 2017, 2 BvB 1/13. Available at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2017/01/bs20170117_2bvb000113en.html; • Communist Party Case (1956) 5 BVerfGE 85; • Socialist Reich Party Case (1952) 2 BVerfGE 1. Available in German at: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv002001.html; Poland: Judgment of 8th March 2000, Pp 1/99 Available at: http://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/omowienia/Pp_1_99_GB.pdf; Supreme Court of the USA: • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/; • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/; Canada: Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc33/2004scc33.html; Australia: McCloy v. New South Wales (2015) 89 ALJR 857; ECHR: • Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, Applications nos. 25803/04 and 25817/04, Judgment of 30 June 2009; • Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, Judgment of 13 February 2003. • Bowman v United Kingdom, Application No. 24839/94, Judgment of 29 January 1998; • Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom, Application No. 48876/08, Judgment of 22 April 2013.
  • Freedom of political communication.
    General approaches to defining the scope of freedom of speech. “State action” doctrine and third-party effect. Content-based and content-neutral restrictions. Balancing free speech against other interests. Communicating information and expressing opinion. Criticizing the government and the role of the press. Self-censorship and chilling effect. Special targets, specific figures. Cases: Supreme Court of the USA: • Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ___ (2015); • Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006); • Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. __ (2016); • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), 485 U.S. 46 (1988); • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Germany: • Luth case (1958) 7 BVerfGE 198; • Blinkfuer case (1969) 25 BVerfGE 256; • Political Satire Case, 75 BVerfGE 369 (1987). UK: Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127; South Africa: Du Plessis and Others v. De Klerk and Another, 1996 http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1996/10.html; Australia: Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25, (1997) 189 CLR 520. ECHR: • Karácsony and others v. Hungary (Applications nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13), Judgment of 17 May 2016; • Castells v. Spain, Application No. 11798/85. Judgment of 23 April 1992.
  • Right to protest.
    Elements of the right to protest. Individual and collective rights. A right to peaceful assembly. Protecting public order, public morals and public health. Real, potential and “fake” threats. Counter-demonstrations, spontaneous demonstrations, simultaneous demonstrations. Demonstrations on private property. Cases: USA: • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942); • Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971); • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). UK: Jordan v. Burgoyne, [1963] 2 QB 744, [1963] 2 All ER 225; Poland: Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal Kp 1/04, 10 November 2004. Available at: http://trybunal.gov.pl/en/case-list/judicial-decisions/art/5832-zakaz-maskowania-sie-przez-uczestnikow-demonstracji-odpowiedzialnosc-jej-organizatora-za-wyrza; Russian Federation: • Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 September 2014 N 24-P; • Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2013 N 4-P. ECHR: • Alekseyev v. Russia, Applications no. 4916/07, 25924/08, 14599/09, Judgment of 21 October 2010; • Lashmankin and others v. Russia. Application nos. 57818/09, 51169/10, 4618/11, 19700/11, 31040/11, 47609/11, 55306/11, 59410/11, 7189/12, 16128/12, 16134/12, 20273/12, 51540/12, 64243/12, 37038/13. Judgment of 7 February 2017; • Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, Application No. 10126/82, Judgment of 21 June 1988.
  • Moot court.
    A simulation of constitutional court proceedings: oral arguments regarding a case that involves restrictions of personal and/or political rights. The case is presented to the students at least 10 days in advance.
Assessment Elements

Assessment Elements

  • non-blocking Moot court
  • non-blocking Class participation
  • non-blocking Debates
  • non-blocking Exam
    Экзамен проводится с использованием дистанционных технологий
Interim Assessment

Interim Assessment

  • Interim assessment (4 module)
    0.2 * Class participation + 0.2 * Debates + 0.4 * Exam + 0.2 * Moot court
Bibliography

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

  • Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality : Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge University Press.
  • Eric Barendt. (2005). Freedom of Speech. OUP Oxford.
  • Issacharoff, S. (2007). Fragile Democracies. Harvard Law Review, 120(6), 1406–1467.
  • Sajó, A. V. (DE-588)139224777, (DE-627)60904852X, (DE-576)165939818, aut. (2017). The constitution of freedom an introduction to legal constitutionalism András Sajó and Renáta Uitz.
  • Sekulow, J. A., & Zimmerman, E. M. (2015). Uncertainty Is the Only Certainty: A Five-Category Test to Clarify the Unsure Boundaries between Content-Based and Content-Neutral Restrictions on Speech. Emory Law Journal, 65(2), 455–494.
  • Tushnet, M. (2003). The issue of state action/horizontal effect in comparative constitutional law. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/1.1.79
  • Williams, S. H. (2009). Constituting Equality : Gender Equality and Comparative Constitutional Law. Cambridge University Press.

Recommended Additional Bibliography

  • Grimm, D. (2007). Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal, 57(2), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2007.0014
  • John Witte, J. (2001). A Dickensian Era of Religious Rights: An Update on Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective. https://doi.org/10.17613/y06g-n262
  • Julia Hussein, Jane Cottingham, Wanda Nowicka, & Eszter Kismodi. (2018). Abortion in Poland: politics, progression and regression. https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1467361
  • Lurie, G. (2020). Proportionality and the Right to Equality. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.8
  • Molier, G., & Rijpkema, B. (2018). Germany’s New Militant Democracy Regime: National Democratic Party II and the German Federal Constitutional Court’s ‘Potentiality’ Criterion for Party Bans: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of 17 January 2017, 2 BvB 1/13, National Democratic Party II. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(2), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019618000196
  • Ruiz, B. R., & Rubio-Marín, R. (2008). The gender of representation: On democracy, equality, and parity. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mon007
  • Shúilleabháin, M. N. (2019). Surrogacy, System Shopping, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. International Journal of Law, Policy & the Family, 33(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/eby021
  • Stone, A. (2011). “Insult and Emotion, Calumny and Invective”: Twenty Years of Freedom of Political Communication. University of Queensland Law Journal, 30(1), 79–97.
  • Sweet, A. S. (2019). Why Europe rejected American judicial review: and why it may not matter. https://doi.org/10.12660/rda.v278.2019.79025
  • Uitz, R., & Central European University. (2015). Freedom and Its Enemies : The Tragedy of Liberty. Eleven International Publishing.