Abstract
It has long been recognized that freedom of opinion is an essential precondition for political democracy. Freedom of opinion first developed within the nature of freedom of religion. Against the powerful church and against its important ally the state, the claim to freedom of religion was first launched as an attack to protect the individual in one of the most personal spheres of human identity and belief. Georg Jellinek has argued that the natural-law theory which came to recognize freedom of religion is at the basis of the movement towards striving for civil and fundamental rights. This theory has not met with general approval, but one cannot overlook that freedom of religion was the basis of some of the most influential political movements to establish early democratic governments.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See G. Jellinek, Die Erklärung der Menschen-und Bürgerrechte, 1895; as to the role of freedom of religion in constitutional and international law see now Chr. Walter, Religionsverfassungsrecht, 2006.
J. A. Frowein, Religionsfreiheit und internationaler Menschenrechtsschutz, in: R. Grote/ Th. Marauhn, Religionsfreiheit zwischen individueller Selbstbestimmung, Minderheitenschutz und Staatskirchenrecht — Völker-und verfassungsrechtliche Perspektiven, 2001, 73–88; the volume contains many important contributions to this subject.
D. Benjamin/ St. Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror, 2002.
See K.-H. Partsch, Die Rechte und Freiheiten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, in: Bettermann et al., Die Grundrechte, Vol. I/1, 1966, 428.
Darby v. Sweden, ECHR 187 (1990).
ECHR 1999-I.
ECHR 255-C (1993).
Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, ECHR 295-A (1994).
ECHR 1996-V.
Arrowsmith v. UK, Decisions and Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights (from now on DR), 19, 5 (1978), now confirmed by the Court ECHR Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 October 2005.
Kokkinakis v. Greece, ECHR 260-A (1993).
Larisses and others v. Greece, ECHR 1998-I.
DR 37, 142 (1983).
Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 October 2005.
Thlimmenos v. Greece, ECHR 2000-IV.
DR 35, 199 (1983).
DR 22, 27 (1981).
Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, 2000-VII. The case concerned a special sort of slaughtering. The Court held that it was sufficient that the applicants could buy this meat (glat) in Belgium. This reasoning is doubtful.
DR 5, 100 (1976).
DR 14, 234 (1978).
DR 16, 68 (1979).
Dahlab v. Switzerland, 2001-V.
Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Jugdment of 10 October 2005.
Serif v. Greece, ECHR 1999-IX.
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v. Moldavia, ECHR 2001/XII.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Frowein, J.A. (2007). Religion and Religious Symbols in European and International Law. In: Brugger, W., Karayanni, M. (eds) Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73355-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73357-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)