Plurality of Legal Systems and Democracy

Gadirov, Javid

doi:10.22096/hr.2020.121446.1192

Plurality of Legal Systems and Democracy

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Javid Gadirov

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Public and International Relations, ADA University, Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan.

10.22096/hr.2020.121446.1192

Abstract

The key problem addressed in the paper is that of the legal pluralism, more specifically the pluralism of legal systems within one state that pursues the accommodation of religious freedom claims. In its controversial Refah decisions the Strasbourg Court held that the prohibition of the Turkish Welfare Party was “necessary in a democratic society” because its plan to set up a plurality of legal systems was not “compatible with fundamental democratic principles”[1]. This paper tries to inquire into the notion of legal pluralism, tries to test normative assumptions made by the Court in its regard and argues that a “no plurality” approach would be overly simplistic and that a liberal approach would require different degrees of pluralization (some of which already exist to accommodate differences and diversity within a society) to be extended to religion, without however endangering constitutional democracy.
It is necessary to point out at least two major theoretical contexts in which this problem should be considered. One is undoubtedly the issue of ‘militant’ democracy: once we assume that constitutional democracy and legal pluralism are incompatible, we give a (part of) definition of democracy, which entitles us to reject any changes proposed to it while retaining the claim to be democratic. If we know what is democracy in a substantive sense, which values it is designed to protect (e.g. secularism or fundamental rights) we can legitimately reject any changes to that vision as a measure protective of such values[2].
Another context that is relevant is the issue of universality and cultural relativism. It first appears when we attempt to define democracy as a substantive notion, which necessarily assumes a value judgement. It also becomes relevant if we mind that the rationale of legal pluralism is the necessity to recognize, respect and tolerate different views and visions of ‘happiness’. In its pure form the idea of relativism and legal pluralism is represented in the classical version of state-centered international law system, where states posses equal and unlimited internal sovereignty[3]. However even within the State any kind and instance of legal pluralism is about the respect and tolerance of the different normative values and views. Only straightforward consensus on all the rules and values as universal can justify total rejection of legal pluralism.
The paper will start by an attempt to clarify the understandings of legal pluralism in social sciences and law. The second part will try to construe a liberal argument in favor of advancing legal pluralism to a certain degree, basing on the individual right to freedom of religion and conscience. Instead of relying on the ‘collective rights’ argument, it rather believes that individual rights provide a sufficient basis for this claim, as far as religious life and consciousness are deemed an important part of individual personality and self-determination. The third part tries to balance the claims of legal pluralism by considering arguments against such a model of society.

[1] Case Of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others v. Turkey, (Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98) Judgment, 31 July 2001 [hereinafter Refah (1)] paras 70-71;See also Case of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), judgment, 13 February 2003, [hereinafter Refah(2)] paras 98 and 119.

[2] See infra, text accompanying notes 35-39.

[3] See infra, note 8, text for the note 25 and page 14.

Keywords

Plurality

Democracy

Legal Systems

Human Rights

A) Books & Articles

- Cover, Robert M. (1982). “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term - Foreword: Nomos and Narrative”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 4.

- Dane, Perry (1991). “The Maps of Sovereignty: A Meditation”, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 12, p.959.

- Dane, Perry (2001). “The Varieties of Religious Autonomy”, in Gerhard Robbers (ed), Church Autonomy: A comparative survey, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

- Durham, W. Cole (1996). “Perspectives on Religious Liberty: A Comparative Framework”, in J. D. van der Vyver and J. Witte Jr. (eds.), Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective, Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

- Durham, W. Cole (1996). “State RFRAS and the Scope of Free Exercise Protection”, U.C. Davis Law Review, No.32, p.665.

- Durham, W. Cole, and Elizabeth A. Sewell (2003). Definition of Religion, unpublished, on the Course Material for the “Freedom of Religion Advanced”, CEU, spring 2003.

- Dyzenhaus, David (2004). Constituting the Enemy: A Response to Carl Schmitt, draft paper for the Conference on Militant Democracy at the Central European University, December 5-6.

- Edelman, Martin (1994). Courts, Politics and Culture in Israel, Virginia: University Press of Virginia.

- Fox, G.H. & Nolte, G, (1995). “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, p.14.

- Gierke, O. (1934). Natural Law and the Theory of Society, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

- Gierke, O. (1987). Political Theories of the Middle Age, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

- Griffiths, J, (1986). “What is Legal Pluralism?”, Journal of Legal Pluralism, Vol. 24, No. 1.

- Haarscher, Guy (2002). “Freedom Of Religion In Context”,Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol.2002, Issue 2/4, p.269.

- Henkin, L. (1995). International law: politics and values, Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.

- Jackson, Tushnet eds. (1999). Comparative Constitutional Law, New York: Foundation Press.

- James E. Wood, Jr. (1998). “The Relationship of Religious Liberty to Civil Liberty and a Democratic State”, Brigham Young University Law Review, Issu 2, p.479.

- Kierkegaard, Soren (1967). Training in Christianity and the edifying discourse which 'accompanied' It, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

- Kommers, D. (1997). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd ed, North California: Duke University Press.

- Krishnaswami, Arcot (1960). Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1, U.N. Sales No. 60. XIV.2.

- Macklem, P (1993). “Distributing Sovereignty: Indian Nations and Equality of Peoples”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 45, No.5, p.1311.

- McConnell, Michael W. (1989). “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 103, No.7, p.1409.

- Moe, C. (2003). Refah Revisited: Strasbourg Construction of Islam, draft paper for the Conference on Refah at the Central European University, 12-15 June 2003.

- Perry, Michael J. (2000). “Freedom Of Religion In The United States: Fin De Siecle Sketches”, Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 75, No.1, p.295.

- Pospisil, Leopold (1971). The Anthropology of Law, New Haven: HRAF Press.

- Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Sapir, Gidon (1999). “Religion and State--A Fresh Theoretical Start”, Notre Dame Law Review, No.36, p. 579.

- Schmitt, Carl. (1958). “Legalität und Legitimät”, in Carl Schmitt, Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsätze, North California: Duke University Press.

- Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1994). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Routledge.

B) Documents

- Cha'are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France (App. No. 00027417/95).

- Freethought Society, of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County 334 F.3D 247.

- Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (App. No. 00030985/96).

- Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-03.

- Kokkinakis v Greece (App. No. 00014307/88).

- Larissis and others v Greece (App. No. 00023372/94; 00026377/94; 00026378/94).

- Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v. Moldova (App. No. 00045701/99).

- Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), judgment, 13 February 2003.

- Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others v. Turkey, (Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98) Judgment, 31 July 2001.

- Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145.

- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 59 (1978).

- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696.

- Serif v. Greece (App. No. 00038178/97).

- The Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (Mem), 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25.

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).

C) Websites

- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm.

- Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com.

- German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm.

- Loi relative à l'application du principe de laïcité dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, http://www.ump.assemblee-nationale.fr/article.php3? id_ article=2282.

- Shah Bano case, http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/shahbano/allshahbano.htm.