The idea is that one cannot understand a social system unless one understands how the people who created the system or who participate in the system perceive it.
Many thanks to my research associate, Stav Cohen, for her most valuable help in the preparation of this Essay. Introduction This Essay deals with a controversial issue in the area of group relations in democratic states, namely the place of group rights in democratic societies and the role of legal pluralism theories.
Group rights are presently recognized as entitled to, if not a treatment equal to that of individual rights, at least the recognition of some form of legitimacy that justifies respect, consideration, and protection. Underlying such legitimacy is a view that looks to ensuring harmony between, and constructive coexistence of, the different components of democratic societies.
This was not always the case with classic international law, which was not interested in the status and rights of groups, whatever their nature. The new approach tended to favor minorities that were more or less distinct from the majority of the respective populations, namely ethnic, religious, cultural, or linguistic groups.
Recently, some of those groups are advancing a position quite different from the one that prevailed in earlier international law, which ignored groups.
Beyond the goal of receiving recognition of their rights as a group, now more or less achieved, some groups strive to have part of their value systems incorporated into the general, binding legal systems of the state or to upgrade their traditional adjudication systems to the category of law.
While it is clear that, in the sphere of criminal law, liberal democracies reject such aspirations, the situation is more fluid concerning family law, and it is regarding this discipline that the controversy requires attention.
This is particularly the case with religious groups because the press has generally looked to religious groups when it deals with the trend of groups asserting their rights.
The claim that, given certain conditions, particular religious traditions should be incorporated into general state legislation and applied to individuals adhering to such traditions, is now being seriously discussed.
It has already engendered vigorous opposition not only in secularist quarters, but also among scholars advocating some accommodation between the secular state and religious groups. Needless to say, the claim is that these religious norms should be applied to only persons sharing the same tradition.
The interaction between minority groups and the state has developed several models based on different historical contexts.
In some states, diverse religious communities enjoy wide legal and judicial autonomy, inherited from situations that evolved under the Ottoman Empire or Western colonialism.
In addition, in recent decades, traditional forms of law and behavior of indigenous populations are finding their way into international instruments, although in a limited form and not readily accepted by all states.
All this has supported the argument that legal pluralism—as described in Part III—should be adopted by plural societies. Coping with Cultural Diversity in Law The author does not advocate legal pluralism but rather an intensified struggle for nondiscrimination.
There is an enormous collection of literature on legal pluralism. See, for example, William Kymlicka, Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversityand former works of the same author.
The Evolution of Group Rights A short historical overview of religious rights is provided to aid in understanding modern group rights in relation to legal pluralism theories.
A few treaties, starting with the Treaty of Westphalia ofwhich granted religious rights to the Protestants in Germany, intended to protect members of dissenting religions.
Later, the Congress of Viennathe Treaty of Berlinand the Constantinople Convention protected Christian religious minorities. A loose system of humanitarian diplomatic intervention of major powers in favor of persecuted minorities also developed, producing measures that acknowledged and protected the rights of groups.
The system ensured the enjoyment of rights by specific minorities and its failure was the result of the conditions prevailing in Europe on the eve of the war.
On group rights, see generally Group Rights Peter Jones ed.Legal Pluralism Legal Pluralism Hooker ( 1) highlighted that 'egal systems typically combine in themselves ideas, principles, rules, and procedures originating from a variety of sources', adding that 'oth in the contemporary world and historically the law manifests itself in a variety of forms.
The rights to be treated equally based on creed, and to freely hold and practice creed beliefs of one's choosing, are fundamental human rights in Ontario, protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and plombier-nemours.com protected is the right to be free from religious or creed-based pressure.
The continuing relevance of human rights.
Human rights evoke concern with the lives of individuals and the well-being of communities. Relevant to our understanding of history, the present, and inter-generational justice, human rights have been on institutional, legislative, constitutional, and international agendas, and have been embraced by diverse social movements in countries all over the.
The concept of pluralism in philosophy indicates the belief that reality consists of many different things or kinds of things. In this sense, it is opposed to the concept of monism, which views all of reality as one substance or whole, or one instance of each kind of plombier-nemours.comism can also be contrasted with dualism in the philosophy of mind.
We live in a world of legal pluralism, where a single act or actor is potentially regulated by multiple legal or quasi-legal regimes imposed by state, substate, transnational, supranational, and . John Rawls (—) John Rawls was arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century.
He wrote a series of highly influential articles in the s and ’60s that helped refocus Anglo-American moral and political philosophy on substantive problems about what we ought to do.