چکیده:
The emerging right to democracy (e. g. Franck, T) within international law favors a liberal, democratic packaging. Yet as Abedolkarim Sourash argues, there has been a conflation of liberalism and democracy, which must be decoupled. It is from this point of departure that this paper will examine the international legality of militant democracy and interrogate when and how a constitutional democracy can legally act in an anti-democratic manner to combat threats to its democratic existence. Militant democracy was a term introduced in 1937 by Karl Lowenstein. It refers to a form of constitutional democracy authorized to protect civil and political freedom by pre-emptively restricting its exercise. Lowenstein’s writings, at the time, were concerned with the limitations of democratic institutions in containing fascism. Militant democracies stand in contrast with the principles of legal pluralism, but the extent to which international law authorizes transformative political agendas that seek to implement forms of religious, cultural, or national autonomy is unclear.
حق نو ظهور دموکراسی (به عنوان مثال فرانک، تی) در حقوق بین الملل از یک ترکیب لیبرال و دموکراتیک طرفداری می‌کند. با این وجود، همانطور که عبدالکریم سروش استدلال می‌کند، لیبرالیسم و دموکراسی با هم آمیخته‌اند اما باید جدا شوند. در این مرحله جدایی است که این مقاله قانونی بودن دموکراسی ستیزه جویانه را در سطح بین المللی مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد و همچنین در این مقاله نشان داده می شود که یک دموکراسی مبتنی بر قانون اساسی چگونه و در چه زمانی می‌تواند به صورت قانونی برای مبارزه با تهدیدات اعمال دموکراسی به روشی ضد دموکراتیک عمل کند. دموکراسی ستیزه جویانه اصطلاحی است که در سال 1937 توسط کارل لوونشتاین معرفی شد. این به نوعی دموکراسی مشروطه‌ای اشاره دارد که مجاز است از آزادی مدنی و سیاسی با محدودیت پیشگیرانه اعمال آن محافظت کند. در آن زمان، نوشته‌های لونشتاین مربوط به محدودیت‌های نهادهای دموکراتیک در مهار فاشیسم بود. دموکراسی‌های مبارزه با اصول کثرت گرایی حقوقی در تضاد هستند، اما حد و مرز اختیارات مجاز حقوق بین الملل در دستورکارهای سیاسی تحول آفرین که به دنبال اجرای اشکال خودمختاری مذهبی، فرهنگی یا ملی هستند، مشخص نیست.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Militant democracies stand in contrast with the principles of legal pluralism, but the extent to which international law authorizes transformative political agendas that seek to implement forms of religious, cultural, or national autonomy is unclear.
g. hate speech legislation; public and political participation; linguistic and educational rights provisions]; second, to revisit the inclusion-moderation/exclusion- radicalization thesis by measuring the effect these mechanisms have on minority communities focusing on selected case studies [and let me break here and note that whilst it may be impossible to measure the ‘success’ of State security provisions, my argument is that it is possible to measure their impact on targeted communities and to the extent to which this promotes inclusion or exclusion from the state].
The theoretical underpinnings of militant democracy clash with emerging principles of legal pluralism (which frame the minority rights discourse), but the extent to which international law authorizes transformative political agendas that seek to implement forms of religious, cultural or national autonomy is equally unclear.
More interesting, at least for my research purposes, is the idea that inclusion can lead to moderation and exclusion, radicalization, proffered by the second argument, which has been raised both case specifically, when reviewing minority rights literature, (which suggests that exclusion fosters a feeling of disenfranchisement among minorities which, with certain dynamics in place, can enact power shifts) and within the transitology 1 and other political science literatures (especially literature which looks at the question of Islamic party participation).
(
, 
, 
)
