Abstract
On the 1st of July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the French legislation banning the wearing in public of the full-face veil. The article describes the intriguing justification given by the Court, notably the argument that the ban was justified as necessary to protect the principle of “living together”, and analyses it as an attempt to avoid rhetorically costlier justifications, such as those mobilising the principles of gender equality and human dignity. The analysis is undertaken in the light of the general hypothesis that one of the factors presiding over interpretative choices, in complex legal cases, is a strategic reasoning taking into account, on the one hand, the benefits and costs of each argumentative possibility for the persuasiveness and objectivity of the justification to be given in the case pending before the Court, and, on the other hand, the corresponding losses and gains of future interpretative power.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
