Stijn Smet

A Window of Opportunity – Improving Gender Relations in Post-Conflict Societies: The Sierra Leonean Experience

Those playing a role in the immediate aftermath of armed conflicts widely state the pursuit of gender equality as a specific objective. This article both assesses the theoretical feasibility of this objective and questions the practical efforts undertaken by development actors in this respect in the concrete case of Sierra Leone. The case study focuses on discrimination against women and girls in Sierra Leonean society and on gender bias and discrimination against girls associated with armed forces or armed groups (GAAFs) in the official Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) Programme and ‘unofficial’ reintegration efforts. The research shows that – due to a variety of factors – the international community does have a window of opportunity to impact positively on gender relations in post-conflict societies. However, as the study demonstrates, this opportunity has thus far not been taken up in the case of Sierra Leone. The article therefore proposes a new robust model to ameliorate efforts to support the creation of gender equality in post-conflict societies, based on the conclusions drawn from the case study.

Notice-and-fair-balance: how to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liability

ABSTRACT In recent years, Europe’s highest courts have searched for the answer to the problem of intermediary liability in the notion of a ‘fair balance’ between competing fundamental rights. At the same time, the ‘notice-and-takedown’ system, which first emerged as a solution to intermediary liability in the 1990s, has spread across the globe, transforming along the way into an assortment of ‘notice-and-action’ variants that differ from country to country. In this article, we seek to examine how both these approaches to the intermediary liability question can be usefully combined. Interpreting ‘fair balance’ as a call for compromise, we propose a move away from the traditional ‘horizontal’ approach of the EUs safe harbour regime, towards a more ‘vertical’ scheme, whereby distinct ‘actions’ are tailored to diverse wrong-doings: notice-and-notice for copyright, notice-wait-and-takedown for defamation and notice-and-takedown and notice-and-suspension for hate speech. Notice-and-judicial-take-down can function as a complementary all-purpose solution. Automatic takedown and notice-and-stay-down are applicable exclusively to child pornography. We suggest that the resulting calibrated system can contribute to achieving a truer ‘fair balance’ in this difficult area of law.

Conscientious Objection to Same-Sex Marriages: Beyond the Limits of Toleration

When civil servants conscientiously refuse to register same-sex marriages, a clash arises between freedom of religion and same-sex equality. The scholarly world is divided on the optimal way to tackle this human rights clash. States, however, are not. Courts and legislators in the US, the UK and the Netherlands—among others—have decisively and unequivocally sided with same-sex equality. This article contributes to the debate by presenting an alternative to existing scholarly analyses, which the author finds wanting. The primary aim is to offer a coherent account of the relevant practice in the UK and the Netherlands. The article’s core argument is that this practice is best understood in terms of the limits of toleration in liberal States. The author argues, in particular, that the UK courts and Dutch legislators have drawn those limits at the point where civil servants cause same-sex couples expressive harm.

Freedom of Religion v. Freedom from Religion: Putting Religious Dictates of Conscience (Back) on the Map

This paper analyses the tension between one person’s freedom of religion and the freedom from religion of others seemingly inherent in proselytism and headscarf cases. In analysing the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the paper assesses the role of secular principles in resolving the (apparent) tension. After unpacking the shortcomings of conceptions of secularism based on closed neutrality, the paper advocates for a conception of secularism that invites open neutrality, principally allowing all (non-)religious manifestations and symbols in the public sphere. Since the alternative conception remains premised on the secular values of equal respect and autonomy, the aim of neutrality – not favouring, nor disfavouring any (non-)religious conviction – is maintained. At the same time, however, the proposed conception of secularism has the advantage that everyone’s right to manifest their religion is taken seriously. Yet the paper also argues that open neutrality should not be allowed free reins. Instead, it should be coupled to a double limitation, justified by the need to protect equal respect and individuals’ autonomy. The paper concludes by illuminating the implications of the advocated move towards open neutrality for the freedom of individuals to wear religious symbols in public institutions (eg Dahlab v. Switzerland) and for the power of the state to order the display of crucifixes in public buildings (eg Lautsi v. Italy).