![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
In this essay the authors—an international and interdisciplinary research team of scholars and practitioners—present the main challenges they faced, the solutions they developed, and their reflections and recommendations based on their research for the annual report of the European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief & Religious Tolerance. The research team elucidated international law standards on FoRB and then assessed whether the laws and practices of third countries are consistent with their international legal obligations. This grounding in international law is a distinctive contribution of the research.
Notes
1 The authors are not affiliated with the European Parliament or the FoRB&RT Intergroup. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors. The authors thank MEP Dennis De Jong for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.
2 See the list of members on the European Parliament website, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/files/organisation-and-rules/organisation/intergroups/legislative-list-of-member-freedom-of-religion-20151130.pdf.
3 See the Intergroup website, http://www.religiousfreedom.eu/reports.
4 The authors of this article and Philippe Poirier of the University of Luxembourg.
5 See above, footnote 2.
6 European Union, “Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief,” https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/137585.pdf
7 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, 1993, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para. 2.
8 See EU Guidelines on FoRB, see above, footnote 8.
9 See Arrowsmith v UK, October 12, 1978, App. 7050/75; C.W. v UK, February 10, 1993, App. 18197/91.
10 See European Court of Human Rights, Bayatyan v Armenia, 7 July 2011, App. 23459/03.
11 EU Council, EU Guidelines for the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, June 24, 2013, available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/137585.pdf.
12 In the report we note that “Priority areas 3, 7, and 8 (Promotion of respect for diversity and tolerance, Support and protection for human rights defenders including individual cases, and Support for—and engagement with—civil society) have been excluded from the analysis. The analysis of international law standards (see below, section 3) has revealed that these priority areas do not correspond to specific international standards, or are regulated by the same norms as other priority areas.” Annex to the Annual Report, p. 4.
13 Pew Research Center, Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend, http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downward-trend, appendixes A and B.
14 Third countries considered as priorities for migration include Turkey and the countries indicated in the Commission's Progress Report on the Partnership Framework on Migration, as well as the countries addressed by the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. See European Commission, “Fifth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration”, September 6, 2017, COM(2017) 471 final, https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/20170906_fifth_progress_report_on_the_partnership_framework_with_third_countries_under_the_eam_en_0.pdf; On the Fund, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/africa/eu-emergency-trust-fund-africa_en.
15 The data on exports to the EU were retrieved from the European Commission website on December 20, 2017, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/statistics.
16 The data relating to GDP have been retrieved from the World Bank website on December 20, 2017, https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table. When those data were not available on the World Bank Website, they were retrieved from the CIA World Factbook.
17 The data on the EU's aid were retrieved from the European Commission website on December 20, 2017, https://euaidexplorer.ec.europa.eu/DevelopmentAtlas.do. The data refer to 2015, as the date on 2016 were not available at the time of the analysis, either on the Commission's website or on the website of the OECD.
18 The existence of human rights dialogues between the EU and third countries was also considered not to be a decisive indicator, as the formats and topics raised at these dialogues vary considerably, and from publicly available information it was not possible to determine whether and to what extent a dialogue addresses the issue of FoRB.
19 FoRB&RT Intergroup, Annual Report on the State of Freedom of Religion or Belief in the World 2015–2016, http://www.religiousfreedom.eu/2016/06/30/annual-report-on-the-state-of-freedom-of-religion-or-belief-in-the-world-2015-2016/.
20 See Pew Research Center, Appendix D: Summary of results, http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/06/APPENDIX-D-1.pdf, Question 20.3.a.
21 This is the case, e.g., of Italy and Spain. For Italy, see, in particular, the judgment of the European Court of Justice of November 6, 2018, Montessori v Commission, Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873. For Spain, see e.g. Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2004, de 5 de marzo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley Reguladora de las Haciendas Locales, BOE, n° 59, 9 mars 2004, art . 62(1); Tribunal Supremo, November 19, 2014, Administración general del Estado / Compañía de las hijas de la caridad de San Vicente de Paúl, ES:TS:2014:4901.
22 The legal standards applicable to the funding of religious schools are problematic. According to the Human Rights Committee, providing funding for the schools of one religious group and not for another must be based on “reasonable and objective criteria”, see Waldman v. Canada, Communication No. 694/1996, Views of the Human Rights Committee adopted on November 5, 1999, para. 10.6. Identifying such criteria might however prove difficult, as shown by the Verein Gemeinsam Lernen v Austria case of the European Commission of Human Rights (App. No. 23419/94, admissibility decision, September 6, 1995). According to this Commission, treating church schools differently from non-denominational schools is a matter which can be justified in terms of the European Convention of Human Rights because, in that case, the church schools were “so widespread that if the educational services which they provide fell to be met by the State, there would be a considerable burden on the State as it would have to make up the shortfall in schools.” See further Temperman (Citation2017).
23 Pew clarifies that “these restrictions and hostilities do not necessarily affect the religious groups and citizens of these countries equally, as certain groups or individuals—especially religious minorities—may be targeted more frequently by these policies and actions than others. Thus, the actual proportion of the world's population that is affected by high levels of religious restrictions may be considerably lower” (15–16).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Mauro Gatti
Mauro Gatti is a Lecturer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences.
Pasquale Annicchino
Pasquale Annicchino is a researcher at the Center for Religious Studies at Foundazione Bruno Kessler, and a Senior Research Associate at the Cambridge Institute on Religion & International Studies.
Judd Birdsall
Judd Birdsall is the Managing Director of the Cambridge Institute on Religion & International Studies, and an Editorial Fellow at The Review of Faith & International Affairs.
Valeria Fabretti
Valeria Fabretti is a Researcher at the Center for Religious Studies at Fondazione Bruno Kessler.
Marco Ventura
Marco Ventura is the Director of the Center for Religious Studies at Fondazione Bruno Kessler.