<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>1757</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2008</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>119</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>126</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Intersentia</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Antwerp-Oxford-Poland</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2015-10-29</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2008-03-13</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Substantive Challenges to the Protection of Religious Freedom under the Framework Convention</title>
    <abstract language="eng">One of the most significant substantive challenges in the interpretation of the Framework Convention concerns the effective protection of freedom of religion of minorities living in Europe. That the freedom of religion and political rights are among the founding pillars of democratic societies has been emphasized time and again by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The significance of these rights and freedoms for religious minorities is obvious due to the importance of religion for their identity and existence. However, in an environment where both the definition of minorities and the substantive scope of Articles 7 and 8 of the Framework Convention are subject to debate, the effective protection of minorities’ rights to exercise their religion individually and in association with the others is a major challenge to the work of the Advisory Committee. A discussion of the religious rights and the corollary political rights of minorities in Europe raises at least two critical questions: the personal scope of application of the Framework Convention and the substantive scope of freedom of religion protected under Articles 7 and 8 of the Framework Convention. In other words, which groups should be deemed as religious minorities in this context and what kinds of rights should they be granted to be able to meaningfully exercise their freedom of religion? This chapter draws particular attention to the disconcerting implications of the ECtHR’s judgment in the case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey for minority protection in Europe, and urge the Advisory Committee to read Strasbourg’s jurisprudence on religious freedom with a  grain of salt.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Useful Pan-European Instrument?</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-9050956437</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Dilek Kurban</author>
    <submitter>Dilek Kurban</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Framework Convention on National Minorities</value>
    </subject>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>1758</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2008</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>56</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2015-10-29</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Supranational rights litigation, implementation and the domestic impact of Strasbourg Court jurisprudence: A Case Study of Turkey</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This report provides an extensive mapping of the strategic litigation of minorities in Turkey before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the substance and implementation of the EctHR's judgments in these cases and the overall impact these judgments have had on human rights protection in Turkey. While the ECtHR case law played an indispensable role in bringing to light the egregious human rights record of the Turkish Government in late 1980s and early 1990s, the report demonstrates, the relative change in government policies came with the emergence of the EU as an actor in Turkish politics. On the other hand, while forcing the government to start cooperating with the ECtHR, the EU process has not resulted in structural changes in Turkey's legal regime and politics.</abstract>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-17581</identifier>
    <note>The report is prepared for the project on “JURISTRAS: The Strasbourg Court, Democracy and the Human Rights of Individuals and Communities: Patterns of Litigation, Implementation and Domestic Reform,” funded by the European Commission’s Sixth Programme.</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Dilek Kurban</author>
    <submitter>Dilek Kurban</submitter>
    <author>Ozan Erözden</author>
    <author>Haldun Gülalp</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Minority legal mobilization before the ECtHR- the case of Turkey</value>
    </subject>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/1758/Turkey case study report-final (2).doc</file>
  </doc>
</export-example>
