Justifikasi Dukungan European Court of Human Rights Terhadap Pelarangan Burqa di Belgia Tahun 2017
Keywords:
burqa, human rights, Belgium, EuropeAbstract
This study aims to analyze the factors behind European Court of Human Right’s justification on their support of the Belgian burqa ban policy. In analyzing this case, the author used the rational choice concept. This research is a qualitative research. The results of this study indicate that the Belgian burqa ban is a form of restriction to human rights which is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. The reasoning behind the justification of the European Court of Human Rights for this policy is that this policy is considered to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Furthermore, since there is no consensus among the state members in regard to the judgments, the Belgian government thus granted a ‘wide’ margin of appreciation which led to the enactment of burqa ban policy in Belgium.
References
BBC News, (2017, 11 Juli). “Belgian face veil ban backed in European court rulingâ€. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40567422 diakses pada 21 April 2020
BBC News, (2018, 7 Agustus). “What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka?â€. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241 diakses pada 1 Juni 2020
Bendor, L Ariel & Seka Tal. (2015), How proportional is proportionality, Oxford Academic: International Journal of Constitutional Law, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/2/530/735723 diakses pada 4 Juni 2020
Brems, E., Janssens, Y., Lecoyer, K., Chaib, S., Vandersteen, V., & Vrielink, J. (2014). “The Belgian ‘burqa ban’ confronted with insider realitiesâ€. dlm Eva Brems (Ed.), The Experiences of Face Veil Wearers in Europe and the Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe Portal, “About the Council of Europeâ€, https://www.coe.int/en/web/yerevan/the-coe/about-coe diakses pada 2 Juni 2020
ECHR. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Nov. 4, 1950, pasal. 8-10, 14).
ECHR (2017). Press Release Judgment of Belcacemi & Oussar v. Belgium: Ban on wearing face covering in public in Belgium did not violate Convention rights.
ECHR (2017). Press Release Judgment of Dakir v. Belgium: Ban on wearing face covering in public in three Belgian municipalities was not in breach of the Convention.
Equality and human rights commission, (2016, 9 Agustus), “What is the European Court of Human Rights?†https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights/how-are-your-rights-protected/what-european-court-human-rights diakses pada 2 Juni 2020
Harrison, Lisa. (2001), Political Reasearch: An Introduction, London: Routledge
Haspeslagh, Marie. (2012). The Belgian Burqa-Ban: Unveiled from a human rights perspective, Master Tesis, Belgia: University of Ghent. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:001892123 diunduh pada 2 Juni 2018
Independent. (2017, 11 Juli). “European Court of Human Rights upholds Belgium's ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veilsâ€. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-burqa-ban-upheld-european-court-of-human-rights-dakir-v-full-face-islamic-veils-headscarf-a7835156.html diakses pada 1 Juli 2018
Mitra, Semia. (2018), Europe and the Burqa: An Unhappy Union between Western Assimilation and Cultural Pluralism. University of Birmingham, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326017064_Europe_and_the_Burqa_-_An_Unhappy_Union_between_Western_Assimilation_and_Cultural_Pluralism diunduh pada 4 April 2020
BBC News, (2018, 7 Agustus). “What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka?â€. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241 diakses pada 1 Juni 2020
Bendor, L Ariel & Seka Tal. (2015), How proportional is proportionality, Oxford Academic: International Journal of Constitutional Law, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/2/530/735723 diakses pada 4 Juni 2020
Brems, E., Janssens, Y., Lecoyer, K., Chaib, S., Vandersteen, V., & Vrielink, J. (2014). “The Belgian ‘burqa ban’ confronted with insider realitiesâ€. dlm Eva Brems (Ed.), The Experiences of Face Veil Wearers in Europe and the Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe Portal, “About the Council of Europeâ€, https://www.coe.int/en/web/yerevan/the-coe/about-coe diakses pada 2 Juni 2020
ECHR. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Nov. 4, 1950, pasal. 8-10, 14).
ECHR (2017). Press Release Judgment of Belcacemi & Oussar v. Belgium: Ban on wearing face covering in public in Belgium did not violate Convention rights.
ECHR (2017). Press Release Judgment of Dakir v. Belgium: Ban on wearing face covering in public in three Belgian municipalities was not in breach of the Convention.
Equality and human rights commission, (2016, 9 Agustus), “What is the European Court of Human Rights?†https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights/how-are-your-rights-protected/what-european-court-human-rights diakses pada 2 Juni 2020
Harrison, Lisa. (2001), Political Reasearch: An Introduction, London: Routledge
Haspeslagh, Marie. (2012). The Belgian Burqa-Ban: Unveiled from a human rights perspective, Master Tesis, Belgia: University of Ghent. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:001892123 diunduh pada 2 Juni 2018
Independent. (2017, 11 Juli). “European Court of Human Rights upholds Belgium's ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veilsâ€. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-burqa-ban-upheld-european-court-of-human-rights-dakir-v-full-face-islamic-veils-headscarf-a7835156.html diakses pada 1 Juli 2018
Mitra, Semia. (2018), Europe and the Burqa: An Unhappy Union between Western Assimilation and Cultural Pluralism. University of Birmingham, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326017064_Europe_and_the_Burqa_-_An_Unhappy_Union_between_Western_Assimilation_and_Cultural_Pluralism diunduh pada 4 April 2020
Downloads
Published
2021-07-08
How to Cite
Yonada, D., & Elistania, E. (2021). Justifikasi Dukungan European Court of Human Rights Terhadap Pelarangan Burqa di Belgia Tahun 2017. Balcony, 5(1), 41–54. Retrieved from https://jom.fisip.budiluhur.ac.id/index.php/balcony/article/view/232
Issue
Section
Articles
License
In submitting the manuscript to the Balcony (Budi Luhur Journal of Contemporary Diplomacy) , the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with Balcony (Budi Luhur Journal of Contemporary Diplomacy) agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Balcony (Budi Luhur Journal of Contemporary Diplomacy) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the Balcony (Budi Luhur Journal of Contemporary Diplomacy) published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
