Document Type : Research Article


Director of Outreach and Program Development, Human Rights Practice Graduate Programs (SBS).


Recognising the inherent problems associated with the international human right to freedom of religion or belief, this article proposes an alternative approach to the right.
One can begin to address the right by clarifying the importance of knowledge and the role that it plays when combined with power. Adopting notions proposed by M. Foucault provides the groundwork for a transgressive interpretation of religion or beliefs such as to account for assertions of a religion or a belief as part of the ongoing social discourse. Manifestations of a religion or belief need not be understood as a struggle between the individual and state, but rather within a broader framework. Consideration could be made of additional factors towards understanding a belief, including the assertions of a believer, without necessarily weighing the merits of the belief.


  1. A) Books and Articles:

    1. Baxter, H.  (1996). “Bringing Foucault into Law and Law into Foucault”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 2.
    2. Bernauer, J. and Mahon, M. (1994). The Ethics of Michel Foucault in Gutting, G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Brandt & Kaplan (1996) “The Tension Between Women's Rights and Religious Rights: Reservations to CEDAW by Egypt, Bangladesh and Tunisia”, Journal of Law and Religion, No. 12, p.105.
    4. Connelly, W. (1999). Why I am not a Secularist, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
    5. Constable, M. (1991). “Foucault and Walzer: Sovereignty, Strategy and the State”, Polity, Vol. 24, No. 2.
    6. Evans, C. (2000). Article 9 and the ECHR, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    7. Evans, M. (1997). Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    8. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, NY: Pantheon Books.
    9. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Sussex: Harvester Press.
    10. Foucault, M. (1989). Foucault Live, Interviews, 1966-84, California: Semiotext.
    11. Foucault, M. (1997). Society Must Be Defended in Rabinow, Picador: New York.
    12. Foucault, Michel (2000). Ethic: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, volume 1, USA: The New Press.
    13. Fuchs, J. (1987). The Phenomenon of Conscience: Subject-Orientation and Object-Orientation in Zecha, G. and Weingartner, P. (eds) Conscience: An Interdisciplinary View, Holland: Reidel Publishing Co.
    14. Hammer, L. (2001). The International Human Right to Freedom of Conscience: Some Suggestions for its Development and Application, UK: Ashgate.
    15. Ivison, D. (1998). The Disciplinary Moment: Foucault, Law, and the Reinscription of Rights in Mass, J. (ed.) The Later Foucault, UK: Sage Publications.
    16. Major, M. (1992). “Conscientious Objection and International Law: A Human Right?”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, No. 24, p.349.
    17. Marcus, E. (1998). “Conscientious Objection as an Emerging Human Right”, Virginia Journal of International Law, No. 38, P. 507.
    18. McCarthy, T. (1998). “The Critique of Impure Reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School”, in: Kelly, M. (ed.), Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, USA: MIT Press.
    19. McHoul, A. and Grace, W. (1997). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject, New York: New York University Press.
    20. Moskos, C. and Chambers, J. (eds) (1993). The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance, NY: Oxford University Press.
    21. Prebensen, S. (1998) “The Margin of Appreciation and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention”, Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 19.
    22. Rouse, J. (1994). Power/Knowledge in Gutting, G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    23. Scolnicov, A. (2001). Children’s Right to Freedom of Religion in a Multi-Religious Society, Turin: Centre for Studies on New Religions.
    24. Siegel, R. (1992). “Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions of Equal Protection”, Stanford Law Review, No. 44.
    25. Simons, J. (1995). Foucault and the Political, London: Routledge.
    26. Tadros, V. (1998). “Between Governance and Discipline: The Law and Michel Foucault” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1.
    27. Tahzib, B. (1996). Freedom of Religion or Belief: Ensuring Effective International Protection, Netherlands: Nijhoff.
    28. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self; The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    29. Van Bijsterved, S. (2000). “Religion, International Law and Policy in the Wider European Arena: New Dimensions and Developments”, in: Ahdar, R. (ed.) Law and Religion, UK: Ashgate.
    30. Witte, J. & Van der Vyver, J. (eds) (1996). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective, Netherlands: Nijhoff.

    B) Documents:

    1. 14307/88 Kokkinakis v. Greece 17 EHRR 397(1993).
    2. 16278/90 Karaduman v. Turkey 74 D&R 93 (1993).
    3. 27417/95 Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France Decision of 27/6/00.
    4. 39023/97 Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria 16/12/04.
    5. 44774/98 Leyla Sahin v. Turkey 10/11/05.
    6. American Convention on Human Rights.
    7. CCPR/C21/Rev.1/Add.4 (1993).
    8. European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
    9. Human Rights Committee’s General Comment to Article 18.
    10. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    11. UN Doc E/CN.4/2000/65.
    12. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.