With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European court of human rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European court of human rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European court of human rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European court of human rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

In 1972 the regulations on tax surcharge were introduced. In the new system the sur-charge are imposed by the Tax Authority (skatteverket) and not the Court. Since 1995 the European Convention on Human Rights constitute law in Sweden, which means that Sweden is forced to guarantee its citizens the human rights in the Convention. Article 6 in the Convention states that everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, is entitled to a fair hea-ring within reasonable time. The Article also expresses the right for anyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (the presumtion of innocence).

The fundamental freedoms and human rights is something the countries, and its citizens, of theEuropean Union more or less take for granted. However, in recent years these rights have become atopic of discussion in the way that a debate about the Islamic headscarves has developed. Thisdebate has resulted in that a number of countries, including France, have taken legislative measuresto ban clothing that fully covers ones face. Out of these bans a discussion has arisen concerning thefundamental freedoms and human rights. These burqa bans, as it is labeled in the pubic debate, havebeen accused to wrongfully limit the individuals freedoms and human rights.This study therefore has the aim to analyze these burqa bans in relation to the European Union,United Nations and the Council of Europe?s general declarations concerning the fundamentalfreedoms and basic human rights.The main result of this study shows that these bans in fact is not a proportionally restrict in thefundamental freedoms and human rights.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

This paper discusses if Margin of Appreciation is compatible with the idea of universal human rights. Through the case of Negative freedom of association in Sweden, it studies the phenomenon that Giorgio Agamben has called the State of exception.The questions that are discussed and answered are 1) How does the rights theories of Jack Donnelly and Ronald Dworkin relate to Margin of appreciation, and 2) How has Margin of appreciation been applied in cases concerning the negative freedom of association in Sweden, in the European court for human rights. These questions and answers are then used in the discussion on how Margin of appreciation affects the concept of universal human rights. .

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

The fundamental freedoms and human rights is something the countries, and its citizens, of theEuropean Union more or less take for granted. However, in recent years these rights have become atopic of discussion in the way that a debate about the Islamic headscarves has developed. Thisdebate has resulted in that a number of countries, including France, have taken legislative measuresto ban clothing that fully covers ones face. Out of these bans a discussion has arisen concerning thefundamental freedoms and human rights. These burqa bans, as it is labeled in the pubic debate, havebeen accused to wrongfully limit the individuals freedoms and human rights.This study therefore has the aim to analyze these burqa bans in relation to the European Union,United Nations and the Council of Europe?s general declarations concerning the fundamentalfreedoms and basic human rights.The main result of this study shows that these bans in fact is not a proportionally restrict in thefundamental freedoms and human rights.

The relation between copyright and the right to privacy is complex and difficulties exist in balancing the rights. Copyright should not be limited. Therefore, to ensure the economic rights of the copyright owners, must the right to privacy instead be limited whenever the two rights collide.The implementation of IPRED into Swedish Law meant a vast change as private operators are able to request information concerning a suspected infringer before as well as during a proceeding concerning an infringement of intellectual property. The chosen implementation method goes beyond IPRED?s requirements and also sanctions a lower standard of proof to grant the requested information.

In tune with the cross-border trade the infringement of intellectual property rights has become a growing problem in Europe and the rest of the world. In June 2008 negotiations about a new international agreement was initiated between Europe, its member states and ten other countries, which will restrict infringements of intellectual property rights. The agreement is called ACTA, which stands for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. On January 26, 2012 the European Union (EU) and twenty-two of its twenty-seven member states signed a letter of intent to the agreement and the EU?s internal processes of the agreement began.

The Human Rights claim that all humans have special rights that are not allowed to be broken or violated. Although these rights are broken and violated by states every day. One major fact that makes this possible is the principle of sovereignty that includes all states, and which says that every state has the power and right to make decisions and create laws within the own country without the interference of other actors. In other words, the problem is that the states have to much power in relation to actors usch as the United Nations and to the rules of the Human Rights. This essay describe a possible way to strengthen the power of the Human Rights so that all humans can be guaranteed the fulfillment of the rights..