SECULAR STATE AND RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY
Abstract
In the present paper, the autor provides a critical appraisal of Marko Božić’s understanding of the principle of state secularity, defended in the previous issues of this journal. Firstly, the author critically examines the non-contestability thesis that is arguably held by Božić and argues that it raises the objection of conceptual imperialism. In the following sections, the author turns to Božić’s extralegal theory (and concept) of secularity based upon the notion of “equality in freedoms”. In particular, the author argues: (a) that the concept of secularity that Božić develops is inherently flawed in several important ways; (b) that an extralegal theory of secularity – that of Božić or anyone else – should not be considered a starting point when interpreting a constitutional principle of secularity; (c) that the concept of secularity that Božić develops is by no means a useful interpretative tool in virtue of the fact that it significantly departs from positive law.
References
Literatura
1. Bix, B., 1993, Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy, New York, Oxford University Press.
2. Božić, M., 2020, Čemu sekularizam, Pravni zapisi, 2.
3. Božić, M., 2021, Sekularizam i ustavna sekularnost, Pravni zapisi, 2.
4. Buchanan, A., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights, New York, Oxford University Press.
5. Casanova, J., 2009, The Secular and Secularisms, Social Research, 76.
6. Evans, C., Thomas, C. A., 2006, Church-State Relations in the European Court of Human Rights, Brigham Young University Law Review, 3.
7. Gallie, W. B., 1956, Essentially Contested Concepts, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56.
8. George, R. P., Marriage and the Illusion of Moral Neutrality, in: Whitehead, K. D., (ed.), 2001, Marriage and the Common Good, South Bend, Ind., St. Augustine’s Press.
9. Kress, K., Coherence, in: Patterson, D., (ed.), 2010, A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell.
10. MacCormick, N., 1984, Coherence in Legal Justification, in: Peczenik, A. et al., (eds.), 1984, Theory of Legal Science, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing.
11. Marmor, A., 2005, Interpretation and Legal Theory, Oregon, Hart Publishing.
12. Milošević, S., 2020, Hod po žici: o ustavnosti ograničenja slobode veroispovesti u vanrednom stanju proglašenom u Srbiji usled epidemije bolesti Covid-19, Pravni zapisi, 1.
13. Milošević, S., 2021, Sekularizam vs. ustavna sekularnost, Pravni zapisi, 1.
14. Mitrović, P., Zakonska nejasnost kao temelj stvaralačke jurisprudencije: primer Republike Srbije, u: Kršljanin, N., (ur.), 2017, Identitetski preobražaj Srbije: prilozi projektu 2016 – kolektivna monografija, Beograd, Univerzitet u Beogradu – Pravni fakultet.
15. Perelman, H., Pet predavanja o pravdi, u: Spaić, B., (prir.), 2017, Pravo i pravda – hrestomatija, Beograd, Univerzitet u Beogradu – Pravni fakultet.
16. Raz, J., 1996, Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Oxford University Press, New York.
17. Sajó, A., 2008, Preliminaries to a Concept of Constitutional Secularism, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6, pp. 608–611.
18. Scharffs, B. G., 2011, Four Views of the Citadel: The Consequential Distinction Between Secularity and Secularism, Religion and Human Rights, 6.
19. Spaić, B., 2014, On the Essential Contestedness of the Concept of Law, Synthesis Philosopica, 57.
20. Spaić, B., Institucionalno rješavanje problema semantičke neodređenosti u pravnom tumačenju, u: Spaić, B., Banović, D., (ur.), 2016, Savremeni problemi pravne i političke filozofije, Sarajevo, Šahinpašić.
21. Tarello, G., 2021, Argumentacija tumačenja i sheme obrazlaganja u pridavanju značenja normativnim tekstovima, Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 45, https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.7897.>
22. Vranić, B., 2011, Suštinska spornost i politički pojmovi, Godišnjak Fakulteta političkih nauka, 5.
23. Waldron, J., 1994, Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, California Law Review, 3.
Propisi
1. Ustav Republike Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 98/06 i 115/21.
2. Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Narodne novine, br. 56/90, 135/97, 08/98, 113/00, 124/00, 28/01, 41/01, 55/01, 76/10, 85/10 i 05/14.
Sudska praksa
1. Lautsi and Others v. Italy, no. 30814/06, Judgment of 18 March 2011 [GC].
2. Darby v. Sweden, no. 11581/85, Report of 9 May 1989 [ECmHR].