Originally presented as the author's dissertation (doctoral)--Freiburg/Schweiz, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 224-258).

In this thesis it is argued that while the concept of freedom of religion or belief itself is opaque and difficult to define, the right to religious freedom must contain certain basic factors – most importantly the right to individual (religious) autonomy. The individual autonomy approach is seen here as providing the necessary rationale for the protection of freedom of religion or belief. This rationale is not cemented in stone in the practice of the Convention and this has caused the Court to lose its focus on individual freedom. It is a dangerous tendency. It allows the focus to be placed on the role of the State and leaves freedom of religion or belief to be heavily affected by politics and fluctuating social attitudes. In this regard, this thesis looks for the meaning and scope of individual and collective religious autonomy and how it is and ought to be represented in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It is the aim of the author to contribute to a clearer and more principled understanding of Article 9 of the ECHR. The right to individual autonomy is thought to be able to provide the necessary focus for the European Court of Human Rights in creating a more robust framework for the protection of freedom of religion or belief different from current Court practice which shows inconsistency in its reasoning and theoretical chaos. This lack of clarity has also contributed to freedom of religion or belief being a relatively weak right. It is explored here as to how the principle of autonomy (as developed in this thesis) relates to other principles provided by the Court, namely the principle of State neutrality, pluralism and the effective protection of rights, but also the margin of appreciation and the autonomy of religious communities. The individual autonomy centred theoretical framework in the first part of the thesis will be engaged to analyse the conflict in the triangle of state-individual-community explored in the second part.

As a product of the armed violence and the human rights violations committed in the decades of the eighties and nineties, the Peruvian government initiated a process of transitional justice in order to compensate the victims and reconcile a fragmented and divided society. However, there are still issues pending in that matter. One of these issues is the search of the missing persons.The present article will delve into the importance of a policy of search of missing persons in the light of the international obligations on human rights matters of the Peruvian state, and will analyze the weaknesses of their judicial actions to accomplish this task. The need of a centralized organism in charge of this function will be sustained, and a normative proposal for its implementation in the Peruvian legal system will be presented. / Producto de la violencia armada y de las vulneraciones a los derechos humanos cometidas en las décadas de los ochenta y noventa, el Estado peruano inició un proceso de justicia transicional con la finalidad de resarcir a las víctimas y reconciliar a una sociedad fragmentada. A pesar de ello, aún se mantienen pendientes en esta materia, como la búsqueda de las personas desaparecidas.El presente artículo ahondará en la importancia de una política de búsqueda de personas desaparecidas a la luz de las obligaciones internacionales en materia de derechos humanos del Estado peruano, y analizará las falencias de sus acciones de judicialización para cumplir esta tarea. Se sustentará la necesidad de un organismo centralizado que se encargue de esta función, y se presentará una propuesta normativa para su implementación en nuestro ordenamiento.

Cette thèse a pour objectif de démontrer que la lutte contre le terrorisme n’exige pas de mesures arbitraires pour se prémunir et/ou éradiquer un tel phénomène globalisé. Deux notions s’affrontent : le maintien de la paix et la sécurité et les droits de l’homme. Sont-elles compatibles ? La lutte contre le terrorisme doit elle être menée à tout prix ? Nous verrons que le contrôle international/régional des mesures prises par les Etats au sein d’une instance internationale ou individuellement est nécessaire et ce en raison de la globalisation du terrorisme qui impacte toutes les nations. Certains droits sont particulièrement menacés par les diverses mesures anti-terroristes, ainsi que les cadres définis des possibilités ou des interdictions de déroger ou de limiter spécifiquement chacun de ces droits. Ce contrôle va être confié à des organes internationaux/régionaux de statuts différents et disposant de moyens de contrôles différents pour contrôler les mesures des Etats. Ce contrôle va permettre de vérifier si les mesures prises par les Etats sont bien conformes au droit international et notamment que ces mesures ne violent pas ni le droit international des droits de l’homme ni le droit humanitaire.Toutefois, ce contrôle international est limité. En effet, les mesures édictées au niveau international sont prises par les Etats victimes du terrorisme et pour lesquelles un contrôle de légalité semble difficile à envisager. Ce contrôle est limité également en raison de l’objectif primordial de lutte contre le terrorisme existant au sein de chaque organe international et régional visant à ne pas freiner l’action des Etats. Nous verrons ainsi que la portée de ce contrôle reste encore nuancée. / The aim of this work is to prove that the fight against terrorism doesn’t need arbitrary measures to eradicate such a globalised phenomena. Two notions are in conflict: peace keeping and human rights. Are they compatible? Should the fight against terrorism be lead by all means?We will see the the international/regional control of the measures taken by the States is necessary because of the globalisation of terrorism. Rights are threatened by measures undertaken by the States. The control is done by international/regional organs which can take different ways. It checks that the States respect international law and especially International Human rights and Humanitarian Law.Nethertheless, this control is limited because the measures adopted at international level are made by States who are victims of terrorism. The international control of legality is far from being accepted. The control is also limited because of the primary aim of the States which is to fight against terrorism. We will see that the scope of the control is nuanced.

The UN Migrant Workers Convention (CMW) that provides for fundamental human rights for migrant workers and members of their families has been adopted in 1990. Until today, none of the EU Member States has signed or ratified it. The EU Member States argue that there is no need for them to accede to the CMW, as, inter alia, the rights contained in it are already secured by other international human rights instruments and in the EU legal instruments. Additionally to the claim of the CMW redundancy for the current EU legal framework, the Member States have several times repeated the fear that the ratification of the CMW could give irregular migrants more rights and increase irregular migration to the EU. Inspired by these two in fact contradictory arguments, this research aims to explore the scope of irregular migrants related human rights protection under international and European law and verify the basis of the EU Member states claims by comparing the scope of rights of irregular migrant workers in the EU with the standards embedded in the CMW. The main research questions posed are What human rights are the irregular migrants entitled to in the EU, based on international and European legal instruments? Is the CMW indeed redundant and unnecessary in the legislative framework of the European Union or is it...

Frauen*rechte beschreiben Grund- und Menschenrechte, die für Frauen* und Mädchen* besonders relevant sind, wie beispielsweise das Recht auf politische Partizipation, auf Bildung, auf Gesundheit oder auf körperliche sowie sexuelle Integrität. Bemühungen um und die Konzeption von Frauen*rechten sind sowohl auf inter- als auch auf nationaler Ebene von Frauen*rechtsbewegungen beeinflusst. Trotz des strukturellen male bias des Rechts kennen sowohl das internationale Menschenrechtsregime als auch nationale Rechtsordnungen Gewaltschutzmechanismen, Geschlechterdiskriminierungsver- oder Gleichstellungsgebote. Kritik gegenüber Frauen*rechten wird aus kulturrelativistischen, universalistisch-feministischen, postkolonialen und queer-feministischen Perspektiven geübt.