Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:26:25.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lautsi vs. Italy: Questioning the Majoritarian Premise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2015

Nahshon Perez
Nahshon Perez*
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Nahshon Perez, Department of Political Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.”

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 565 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bayle, P. 2005. A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. 1969. “Two Kinds of Liberty.” In Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bhargava, R. 1998. “What is Secularism for?” In Secularism and its Critics, ed. Rajeev, Bhargave. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 486–542.Google Scholar
Brettschneider, C. 2007. Democratic Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. 1959. “Positive Economics, Welfare economics, and Political Economy.” Journal of Law and Economics 2:124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1996. Freedom's Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1983. Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M.D. 2011. “From Cartoons to Crucifixes.” Journal of Law and Religion, 26:345–370.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1992. “The Child's Right to an Open Future.” In His Freedom and Fulfilment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, A., and Ferrari, S. 2010. “Religion and the Secular State: The Italian Case.” http://www.iclrs.org/content/blurb/files/Italy.pdf (Accessed on May 19, 2014).Google Scholar
Finke, R., and Stark, R. 2003. “The Dynamics of Religious Economies.” In The Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, ed. Dillon, M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–109.Google Scholar
Gat, Azar. 2013. Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, A. 2008. The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harel, A., and Eylon, Y.. 2006. “The Right to Judicial Review.” Virginia Law Review 92:991–1022.Google Scholar
Langlaude, S. 2013. “Lautsi v Italy: Coercion and Lack of Neutrality in the Classroom?” Queen's University Belfast School of Law: Research Paper 2013–11.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 2010. “A Letter Concerning Toleration.” In Locke on Toleration, ed. Vernon, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen. 1995. “Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls?” Ethics 105:468–497.Google Scholar
Mancini, S. 2010. “The Crucifix Rage: Supranational Constitutionalism Bumps Against the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty.” European Constitutional Law Review 6:6–27.Google Scholar
Marshall, W.P. 2013. “The Lautsi Decision and the American Establishment Clause Experience.” Maine Law Review 65:770–782.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2014. “Majorities and Minarets: Religious Freedom and Public Space.” British Journal of Political Science. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000131.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2008. Liberty of Conscience. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 1998. On the Dignity of Man. New York, NY: Hackett.Google Scholar
Pierik, R. 2012. “State Neutrality and the Limits of Religious Symbolism.” In The Lautsi Papers: Multidisciplinary Reflections on Religious Symbols in the Public School Classroom, ed. Temperman, J. Leiden: Brill, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pin, Andrea. 2011. “Public Schools, the Italian Crucifix, and the ECHR.” Emory International Law Review 25:95–149.Google Scholar
Piret, J.M. 2012. “Limitations of Supranational Jurisdiction, Judicial Restraint and the Nature of Treaty Law.” In The Lautsi Papers: Multidisciplinary Reflections on Religious Symbols in the Public School Classroom, ed. Temperman, J. Leiden: Brill, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. S. 2000. “The Stupidity of the Cost-Benefit Standard.” The Journal of Legal Studies 29:971–1003.Google Scholar
Richardson, H.S. 2002. Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rostbøll, C. 2005. “Preferences and Paternalism: on Freedom and Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 33:370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T.M. 1975. “Preference and Urgency.” Journal of Philosophy 72:655–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T.M. 1986. “The Significance of Choice.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 7:149–216.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. 2003. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, J.C. 1998. Seeing Like a State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony. 1995. “Gastronomy or Geology? The Role of Nationalism in the Reconstruction of Nations.” Nations and Nationalism 1:3–23.Google Scholar
Stolzenberg, Maya Naomi. 1993. “He Drew the Circle That Shut Me Out: Assimilation, Indoctrination and the Paradox of Liberal Education.” Harvard Law Review 106:581–667.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. 1991. “Politics and Preferences.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20:3–34.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1998. “Modes of Secularism.” In Secularism and its Critics, ed. Bhargave, Rajeev, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–54.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. 2009. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:369–404.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2007. Mechanisms of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. 1988. “Locke: Toleration and the Rationality of Persecution.” In Justifying Toleration, ed. Mendus, S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. 2006. “The Core of the Case against Judicial Review.” Yale Law Journal 115:1346–1406.Google Scholar
Warren, M.E. 2011. “Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 105:683–701.Google Scholar
Weber, E. 1976. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, J. 2010. “Editorial.” The European Journal of International Law 21:1–6.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. 2011. “State and Nation; Church, Mosque and Synagogue – On Religious Freedom and Religious Symbols in Public Places.” In Universal Rights in a World of Diversity, The Case of Religious Freedom, eds. Glandon, M., and Zacher, H.. Vatican City: The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 578–588.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. 2013. “Lautsi: A Reply.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 11:230–233.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zucca, L. 2013. “Lautsi: A Commentary on a Decision by the ECtHR GC.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 11:218–229.Google Scholar
Dahlab v. Switzerland. ECHR 42393/98.Google Scholar
Lautsi v. Italy. ECHR. 30814/06.Google Scholar
Eweida v. the U.K. ECHR 36516/10.Google Scholar
Dahlab v. Switzerland. ECHR 42393/98.Google Scholar
Lautsi v. Italy. ECHR. 30814/06.Google Scholar
Eweida v. the U.K. ECHR 36516/10.Google Scholar