State‐Sponsored Homophobia and the Denial of the Right of Assembly in C entral and E astern E urope
The “Boomerang” and the “Ricochet” between E uropean Organizations and Civil Society to Uphold Human Rights
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7328425 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ronald Holzhacker (Institute for Urban and Regional Research, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 1-28 |
| Publication date | 2012-11-08 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2012.00371.x |
| OpenAlex | W2138235072 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 14 |
| References cited | 15 |
State‐sponsored homophobia emerged in certain C entral and E astern E uropean states in the past decade, with the denial of the right of assembly for gay pride marches. However, more recently there has been progress in the recognition of the fundamental democratic right of assembly. What accounts for this progress in fulfilling commitments enshrined in the E uropean human rights treaties? This article proposes that the response of E uropean organizations, in particular the C ouncil of E urope and the E uropean U nion, as well as human rights nongovernmental organizations working in collaboration with local civil society organizations, have been critical to this progress. Previous literature has described a “boomerang” effect, in which aggrieved citizens use transnational activist networks to publicize human rights violations and put pressure on governments to fulfill their international legal commitments. To understand the functioning and effectiveness of the “boomerang” we introduce the concept of the “ricochet”—a process in which various institutions and civil society rapidly exchange information as well as political and legal argumentation. We posit that the ricochet is an integral process in the development of a E uropean consensus on the human rights recognized by the E uropean C ourt of Human Rights. Four cases have been selected for empirical analysis: P oland, L atvia, S erbia, and R ussia. In analyzing the ricochet of information and argumentation between institutions and civil society, we find the consensus has been framed around the right of assembly, instead of the more contested area of human rights and sexual orientation
Argumentation theory · Civil society · Democracy · Denial · Human rights · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Pride · Sociology · State (computer science · Computer Science · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Gender Politics and Representation · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Politicizing Sex in Contemporary Africa
How structural homophobia is spreading HIV-risk sexual behaviours around the world
Between the market and the hard place
Configuring human rights at EuroPride 2015
The Role of Gay-Related Stigma in HIV-Risk Behavior Among Sexual Minority Men in Europe
Russia’s Relations with the European Court of Human Rights in the Aftermath of the Markin Decision
Migrants in the closet
Pride parades and prejudice
Proxy Politics, Economic Protest, or Traditionalist Backlash
Local histories, European LGBT designs
The anticipatory politics of homophobia
Strange Fruit
Domestic courts, transnational law, and international order
A hegemon fighting for equal rights
The New Transnational Activism
The Idea Of An Overlapping Consensus
Activists beyond Borders
Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements
Mobilizing for Human Rights
National and transnational strategies of LGBT civil society organizations in different political environments
Transnational Advocacy Networks and Policy Cycles in the European Union
Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights
The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe
Activists beyond borders
| Citations per year | 1.17 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2014 - 2026 (13) |
| Highly cited | No |