Ideologies of Motherhood in European Community Sex Equality Law

This article argues that, in a series of cases from Hofmann in the mid-1980s to Hill and Stapleton in 1998, the Court of Justice has reproduced, and thereby legitimated, a traditional vision of motherhood and the role of women in the family, and in society generally. This vision, characterised as the 'dominant ideology of motherhood', limits the potential of the Community's sex equality legislation to bring about real improvements in the lives of women. Accordingly, far from alleviating discrimination against women, the Court's jurisprudence is reinforcing traditional assumptions which inhibit women's progress. It is argued that the Court should reject the dominant ideology of motherhood and utilise its interpretative space to pursue a more progressive and liberating rendering of women and men's relationships and obligations to each other and their children.     

Sisters in Arms: European Community Law and Sex Equality in the Armed Forces

Abstract: Recently the European Court of Justice has been shedding a new light on the limits of Community competence for defence. This article analyses the rulings in Sirdar, Kreil, and Dory with regards to two interrelated issues. First it discusses the effect of Community law on the equality of men and women in the armed forces of the Member States. Second, it deals with the impact of these decisions on the constitutional order of the European Union. The article argues that Community law has a considerable impact on defence‐related national law. Therefore the analysis ultimately contributes to a narrow aspect of the constitutional debate: the demarcation of competencies between the Member States and the Community in matters related to defence.>     

Sex Equality as Substantive Justice

Books reviewed in this article:
Sandra Fredman, Women and the Law
Aileen McColgan, Just Wages for Women     

实质平等和非歧视法

引　言根据对平等和非歧视的一般性理解,拥有平等地位的个人应得到平等的对待。为了在实际中应用这一理念,我们有必要对两个人或两类人进行比较,并得出关于他们之间共同点和不同点的结论。如无正当理由,对地位平等的两个人给予不同的对待就构成了歧视。这种实现平等的方法经常被称做形式平等。形式平等方法在适用于男性和女性时存在不足。首先,形式平等的概念很难应用于无男性参照者的情况,比如有关母性和怀孕的问题。其次,形式平等方法在处理差别待遇的性别中立标准问题时可能没有效果。第三,形式平等方法通常并不足以实现“机会平等”或“…     

Equality Law and the Protected Characteristics

UK anti‐discrimination law is founded on a grounds‐based system of protected characteristics. For this system to function as a legitimate and workable legal framework the characteristics must satisfy three conditions: they must have some definitional and categorical stability, they must broadly reflect people's understanding of social reality and lived experiences and they must align with the most significant axes of discrimination in society. This article argues that all three conditions are becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy as a result of dramatic shifts in social configurations of identity and the ongoing failure to include socio‐economic status as a legally protected characteristic. The future of the legislative framework may depend on the willingness of courts and policy‐makers to adopt a more context‐based approach to the protected characteristics. This would require them to interrogate claims of individual instances of discrimination in the context of wider, but also more particular substantive group disadvantage.     

Equality before the Law and Precedent

The paper explores the nature of the principle of equality before the law, understood as the formal justice criterion that like cases must be treated alike, as a rationale of the rule or system of precedent. The first part discusses and rejects Kelsen's thesis on the conceptual insignificance of that principle in the sphere of the application of the law, identified uniquely with a logical criterion related to generality of rules and simple legality. The second part argues for the ethical relevance of equality before the law as a reason for a legal system to have a rule of defeasibly binding precedent.     

The Rule of Law and Equality

This paper describes and defends a novel and distinctively egalitarian conception of the rule of law. Official behavior is to be governed by preexisting, public rules that do not draw irrelevant distinctions between the subjects of law. If these demands are satisfied, a state achieves vertical equality between officials and ordinary people and horizontal legal equality among ordinary people.     

论国际人权法中的平等与不歧视

国际人权法对我国是越来越重要的领域 ,而几乎所有的国际人权文件都包含平等与不歧视的内容。平等与不歧视成为国际人权法的核心。本文着重论述和分析了主要的国际人权文件中有关平等与不歧视的规定 ,揭示了平等与不歧视既是一般原则又是一项独立的权利 ,从法律效力上讲 ,它已经具有了强行法的地位。国家在国际人权法下承担不歧视的积极义务。     

EU Equality Law: Three Recent Developments

This article analyses three recent developments within the EU that have an impact on EU equality legislation: the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Proposal to extend the material scope of the provisions against discrimination on the ground of religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation beyond the area of employment, and the case law of the European Court of Justice regarding the EU Equality Directives of 2000. It will assess whether these three developments have led to improved protection against discrimination for people in the EU.     

Arthur Ripstein,Equality, Responsibility,and the Law

Law and Philosophy -     

刑法平等原则辨析

刑法已经对平等作了明确的规定,但刑法学界对于刑法平等是单纯的司法平等还是立法平等与司法平等的统一、刑法平等是纯粹打击犯罪上的平等还是打击犯罪与保护权益平等的结合、刑法平等是否仅为自然人间的平等、刑法平等要排除哪些因素的干扰、刑法平等与区别对待关系如何处理,争议颇大。对这些争议予以澄清是正确把握刑法平等原则内涵和外延的需要。     

论私法上人格平等与身份差异

人格平等与身份差异共同构成人身法制的基础,两者均不具有无条件的合理性,只在特定条件下符合自由、效率、公平等价值取向.两者在各自的固有领域中发挥功能,彼此兼容、互补,从不同方面满足个人生活与社会秩序需要.人格平等为身份差异设置了限制,实现了特定领域身份差异的均衡化,导致特定身份差异的功能特定化,改变了固有身份关系的内容,并对身份差异在制度上进行弥补.身份差异对于人格平等进行了完善,只有在身份差异基础上才能解读人格平等,身份差异限定了人格平等的内容与实现状况.     

The State of Gender Equality Law in the European Union

Abstract:  This article assesses critically the recent law and policy initiatives in European Union gender equality. As a fundamental right, the principle of gender equality is to apply in all areas of EU law. Its scope has been extended to the access to and supply of goods and services and, according to the European Court of Justice, to the Third Pillar. Despite efforts to render the principle visible and accessible, a number of provisions remain unclear and contradictory. The contribution of external actors in this field is set to help safeguarding and enhancing the Community gender equality acquis .