Volume 7, Issue 3

This work deals critically with the Islamic full veil ban in public spaces, that is start­ing to be adopted in some European countries and is being echoed in some regulations in Spanish municipalities. After a brief analysis of the general bans recently passed in Belgium and France and of the partial bans adopted in schools by other countries, like Germany, Ita­ly or the UK, the article analyses the constitutionality of the recently approved municipal bans in Spain from a constitutional perspective, including the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The author reaches the conclusion that according to the Sp Const 1978 an adequate interpretation of the limitations to the freedom of religion and the right to one’s own image, involved when wearing an Islamic full veil, would make a general ban on the full veil in each and every public space unconstitutional, but would allow its partial ban regarding the access to municipal buildings or services or regarding teachers and pupils at schools, as far as these partial bans could be justified by constitutional values like safeguarding of public institutions or services, or protecting the fundamental rights of others. `

The twenty-first century is witnessing a number of initiatives to improve the liv­ing conditions of animals - worldwide, at the regional and the national level. While the debate on which status should be granted to animals is still undecided, a consensus has emerged about the need for animal welfare and the (moral and legal) obligations of hu­mans towards non-human animals. Today, animal welfare and our moral obligations to­wards animals have come to be accepted as part of public morality. This article draws at­tention to this change in moral and legal thinking over the past decades. The consequenc­es of this change are put to the test with regard to a specific protective measure concern­ing animals - the prohibition of un-stunned (ritual) slaughter. It will be argued that if public morality in the 21st century does indeed include respect for the welfare of animals, it may serve as a legitimate aim to limit the freedom of religion and with that, the practice of un-stunned ritual slaughter.

This article considers why Argentina and Brazil have resisted global trends and pressures towards the adoption and implementation of laws criminalising acts of terror. It is argued that the development of Argentine and Brazilian understandings of ‘terrorism’, resulting from the considerable experience of each nation with state and insurgent terror, has led to persistent anti-counter-terrorism-law policies. Some lessons are drawn from this discussion to educate the evolution of counter-terrorism law and policy more widely.

By acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.