Foreword, <i>by Mary Ann Glendon</i>

Glendon, Mary Ann

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511617706.001

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…77 A suggestion from a member of the Committee, charged with producing proposals, is that a programme which touched on the issue of civil marriage still remained sensitive a century after the Kulturkampf. 80 In the event, the emphasis on self-sufficiency and independence for women was much less pronounced than in the Swedish reform. 79 One view is that this latter issue was more contentious than divorce itself.…”

Section: Politics and Family Law Reform In A Period Of Transition: Camentioning

confidence: 99%

A Family Law for Europe? Sovereignty, Political Economy and Legitimation.

Bradley¹

2004

Global Jurist Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses three central issues which confront the Commission on European Family Law and similar initiatives to harmonise legal policy applied to domestic relationships. First, what is at stake for nation states, if they cede control and adopt a uniform family law? Second, how can the Commission, or comparable agency, legitimate selection of particular legal models for harmonisation? Third, does the view, supported within the Commission, that family laws in Europe are converging, have any validity? The paper does not oppose, in principle, a family law for Europe or examine what new competence European institutions will require if harmonisation is to be achieved.The perspective in this paper is that laws regulating domestic relationships are a significant component of political economy. It is this which ties a family law so closely to the country in which it operates. The objective here is to demonstrate that legal policy constitutes a powerful medium to promote political interests and objectives, and that substantial differences remain between European jurisdictions in this respect. * This paper has been published in K Boele-Woelki (ed.) Perspectives for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe (Antwerp: Intersentia. 2003)(pp. 65-104)http://www.intersentia.be/english/series2.shtml. I am grateful for permission to reproduce the paper here.Brought to you by | University of Georgia Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 6/7/15 11:36 AM examine contemporary developments; and anticipate future legal policy.In conclusion, the paper notes the absence of precedents for the project to develop a European family law and considers the significance of this initiative for political union in Europe.

show abstract

Section: Politics and Family Law Reform In A Period Of Transition: Camentioning

confidence: 99%

A Family Law for Europe? Sovereignty, Political Economy and Legitimation.

Bradley¹

2004

Global Jurist Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus of the third session, these rights would be universal, applicable to all, no matter where they might be, but would only have suggestive, moral force. 79 It was less than India had hoped for. But there were more innings to be played.…”

Section: Declaring Human Rights Universalmentioning

confidence: 99%

India and the Quest for One World

Bhagavan

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…59 Finally, some third-world despots cynically have misrepresented the right of self-determination to justify their repressive measures against dissent and minority groups. 60 Nevertheless, it still is possible to contrast the degrees to which different states emphasize human rights vis à vis competing foreign policy values. In the 1970s, both The Netherlands and Norway cancelled aid to Uganda in protest of Idi Amin's atrocities.…”

Section: Us Human Rights Policy In Comparative Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dilemma of Double Standards in U.S. Human Rights Policy

Turner

2003

Peace & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In May 2000 the United States was voted off of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This reflected the frustration of much of the international community with the United States’ increasingly obstructionist approach to international institutionalism. The United States’ opposition to the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) reflects its pursuit of double standards in human rights policy. Double standards are manifest in U.S. support for Israel and Turkey with their records of gross human rights violations. They likewise are discernable in the strategic motives behind the 1999 Kosovo intervention. The proposed ICC challenges the United States’ use of human rights rhetoric to pursue unilateral objectives by forging a more neutral means of prosecuting international justice. If the United States is to recover its status as the world's human rights leader, it must renew its commitment to multilateral institutionalism and must avoid double standards that undermine the legitimacy of human rights discourse.

show abstract

Foreword, by Mary Ann Glendon

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

A Family Law for Europe? Sovereignty, Political Economy and Legitimation.

A Family Law for Europe? Sovereignty, Political Economy and Legitimation.

India and the Quest for One World

The Dilemma of Double Standards in U.S. Human Rights Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About