Abstract
The freedom to manifest religion or belief is fundamental for democratic societies. Within an ever more diversifying Europe, allegations of violations of this fundamental right have seen a sharp increase over the past two decades. This thesis conducts an analysis into the inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in contrast to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC). This thesis addresses a gap in research on how the ECtHR and HRC are reaching opposite decisions on the same or analogous cases. Doctrinal-legal, historical, comparative and legal-philosophical research methods are used to conduct this research. The three analytical strands: complications, contradictions and compulsion, act as a method to delineate the research findings and justify the new interventions of this thesis. This thesis finds that the ECtHR has invented its own controversial interpretive mechanisms: the living together, margin of appreciation and secular approaches, which are contributing to contradictions with the HRC and within the ECtHR’s own case law. The absence of clear and unambiguous conceptual understandings of religion and belief by the ECtHR have compounded these issues further. The ECtHR’s case decisions on Article 9 of the ECHR are thus complicated, contradictory and coercive. This research project addresses the problems identified with a novel examination framework that supports the study into the concepts of religion and belief and their intersections with the law. It has been published in my journal article in the international peer-reviewed journal, the Human Rights Education Review, published by Taylor & Francis, Routledge. My research is being used to rethink policy on human rights curricula which constitutes a major original contribution to knowledge.