Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Böckenförde Theorem and Burqa Ban

  • Ralf Michaels

Abstract

When France and Belgium banned face veils in 2010 and 2011, they were the first European countries to do so in a comprehensive matter. Now Austria has its own ban, Denmark is on track to have one too, and several other countries are toying with the idea. Such bans are often considered incompatible with the rights of veil wearers (especially Muslim women). Less prominent is the question whether such bans are incompatible with the modern state.

Such a critique can be grounded on the work of the leading German constitutional law scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde and his famous dictum, according to which “[t]he liberal, secularized state draws its life from preconditions it cannot itself guarantee.” For Böckenförde, this means that headscarves, a different type of veil, cannot be banned—not because this would violate a woman's rights, but because it would undermine the very character of the state itself.

The article transposes this argument from the German discourse over headscarves to the European discourse over face veils. It demonstrates the potential of Böckenförde's dictum for the face veil debate, but also its limitations.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Böckenförde Theorem and Burqa Ban
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Böckenförde Theorem and Burqa Ban
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Böckenförde Theorem and Burqa Ban
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 See What is German “Leitkultur”?, Deutsche Welle (May 3, 2017), http://www.dw.com/en/what-is-german-leitkultur/a-38684973 (explaining that Leitkultur is a largely non-translatable German concept that describes some kind of core culture, characteristic of the country, and therefore functioning as a guideline).

2 See de Maizière, Thomas, Wir sind nicht Burka, Bild am Sonntag (Apr. 29, 2017), http://www.bild.de/bild-plus/politik/inland/thomas-de-maizière/leitkultur-fuer-deutschland-51509022. The article was republished on the government's website, with a different title, also in English: Thomas de Maizière, A Leitkultur for Germany: What exactly does it mean?, Federal Ministry of Interior (May 1, 2018), http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Interviews/EN/2017/namensartikel-bild.html. The reference to the burqa is not the only implicit rejection of certain habits that are often connected with Islam. De Maizière also emphasizes that “[t]o us there is no linkage between the concept of honour and violence,” demanded that immigrants “must show respect in the way they interact with others and accept the precedence of law over religion” and alluded to the primacy of Christianity: “Religious holidays are part of our calendar. Church spires are part of our landscapes. Our country is based on Christian tradition.”

3 The grammar used here is incorrect. It may reference, implicitly, a famous headline in Bild when German Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, reading “Wir sind Papst” (We are Pope). It expresses a forceful, and deeply problematic, system of inclusion and exclusion, of identification and non-identification. “We” is not used here as a contingent and internally plural community. It is a value-laden concept, invoking a national community of a particular nature.

4 De Maizière, supra note 2 (where the last sentence is inaccurately translated as “We don't do burqas”). The German original is this:

‘Gesicht zeigen‘—das ist Ausdruck unseres demokratischen Miteinanders. Im Alltag ist es für uns von Bedeutung, ob wir bei unseren Gesprächspartnern in ein freundliches oder ein trauriges Gesicht blicken. Wir sind eine offene Gesellschaft. Wir zeigen unser Gesicht. Wir sind nicht Burka.

5 Jürgen Habermas, Keine Muslima muss Herrn de Maizière die Hand geben, Rheinische Post (May 3, 2017), http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/leitkultur-das-sagt-juergen-habermas-zur-debatte-aid-1.6793232. See also Polzin, Monika, Constitutional Identity as a Constructed Reality and a Restless Soul, 18 German L. J. 1595, 1603 (2017).

6 See infra Section C.

7 The literature is enormous. For two collections of contributions, see Hall, Helen, The Burqa Affair Across Europe: Between Public and Private Space (Alessandro Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2013); David Koussens, Quand la burqa passe à l'ouest (David Koussens & Olivier Roy eds., 2013). My own analysis is Ralf Michaels, Banning Burqas: A View from Postsecular Comparative Law, 28 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 213–45 (2018).

8 Korteweg, Anna C. & Gokçe Yurdakul, The Headscarf Debates: Conflicts of National Belonging 57 (2014).

9 Todd Shepard, La >;bataille du voile<; pendant la guerre d'Algérie, in Le foulard islamique en questions 134–41 (Étienne Balibar & Charlotte Nordmann eds., 2004).

10 President Barack Obama, Address in Cairo (Jun. 4, 2009), reproduced in NY Times (Jun. 6, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html.

11 General Comment no. 22, concerning Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), adopted on July 20, 1993, No. 4, http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html; General Comment no. 28, concerning Article 3 (equality of rights between men and women), adopted on Mar. 29, 2000, No. 13, http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c9b4.html; Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, 2004) 12 IHRR 345, IHRL 1714 (UNHRC 2004).

12 See Silvestri, Sara, Comparing Burqa Debates in Europe: Sartorial Styles, Religious Prescriptions and Political Ideologies, in Religion in Public Spaces: A European Perspective 275 (Silvio Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2012).

13 See Joppke, Christian, Veil: Mirror of Identity (2009).

14 See Oliva, Javier García, Religious Dress Codes in the United Kingdom Comparing Burqa Debates in Europe: Sartorial Styles, Religious Prescriptions and Political Ideologies, in Religion in Public Spaces: A European Perspective 217, 223 (Silvio Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2012).

15 See Bowen, John, Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space (2007); Anna C, Korteweg & Gökçe Yurdakul, The Headscarf Debates: Conflicts of National Belonging 15 (2014).

16 Sabrna Garahan, Ebrahimian v France: Application no 64846/11: European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section: Casadevall, Yudkivska, De Gaetano, Potocki, Jäderblom, Pejchal, O'Leary JJ; De Gaetano J dissenting; O'Leary J partly dissenting: 26 November 2015, 5 Oxford J. of L. & Religions 365 (2016).

17 Rudolf Steinberg, Kopftuch und Burqa: Laizität, Toleranz und religiöse Homogenität in Deutschland und Frankreich (2015).

18 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Sept. 24, 2003, 2 BvR 1436/02, 108 BVerfGE 282, 2–3 Annual of German & European Law 533; for discussion in English see Joppke, Christian, Veil: Mirror of Identity 5380 (2009); Axel Frhr. von Campenhausen, The German Headscarf Debate, 2004 BYU L. Rev. 665 (2004); see also Donald p. Kommers & Russell a. Miller, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 585–87 (3d ed. 2012).

19 Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], June 24, 2004, 2 C 45.03, 59 Juristenzeitung [JZ] 1178 (2004), with a note by Böckenförde.

20 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, 1 BvR 471, 1181/10, 138 BVerfGE 296; see Mahlmann, Matthias, Religious Symbolism and the Resilience of Liberal Constitutionalism: On the Federal German Constitutional Court's Second Head Scarf Decision, 16 German L.J. 887 (2015); Johann Ruben Leiss, One Court, Two Voices: Case Note on the First Senate's Order on the Ban on Headscarves for Teachers from 27 January 2015: Case No. 1 BvR 471/10, 1 BvR 1181/10, 16 German L.J. 901 (2015).

21 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], June 27, 2017, 2 BvR 1333/17, 70 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2333 (2017).

22 Contra, Anna Katharina Mangold, Justitias Dresscode: Wie das BVerfG Neutralität mit „Normalität“ verwechselt, Verfassungsblog (July 6, 2017), http://verfassungsblog.de/justitias-dresscode-wie-das-bverfg-neutralitaet-mit-normalitaet-verwechselt/; Nahed Samour, Rechtsreferendarin mit Kopftuch: Rosa Parks im Zuschauerraum des Gerichts, Verfassungsblog (July 7, 2017), http://verfassungsblog.de/rechtsreferendarin-mit-kopftuch-rosa-parks-im-zuschauerraum-des-gerichts/.

23 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 108 BVerfGE 282, at 334.

24 See Jones, Rachel Bailey, Postcolonial Representations of Women 135–67 (2011) (referencing further analysis).

25 For the history, I draw on Anne Fornerod, The Burqa Affair in France, in The Burqa Affair Across Europe: Between Public and Private Space 59 (Alessandro Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2013).

26 Conseil d'État, June 27, 2008, no. 286798, “Madame M.”; see Vakulenko, Anastasia, Gender Equality as an Essential French Value: The Case of Mme M, 9 Oxford Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 143 (2009) (discussing issue in English); Erik Nilsson, Who is Madame M?: Staking Out the Borders of Secular France, in Religion as a Category of Governance and Sovereignty 21, 25–33 (Trevor Stack, Goldenberg, Naomi R. & Timothy Fitzgerald eds., 2015).

27 Rapport d'information fait en application de l'article 145 du règlement au nom de la mission d'information sur la pratique du port du voile intégral sur le territoire national, No. 2262 (Jan. 26, 2010), http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i2262.asp (Fr).

28 Loi 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 de interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public.

29 Gérin, supra note 27,at 13–14, 85, and passim.

30 Jogcum Vrielink, Saïka Ouad Chaib & Eva Brems, The Belgian ‘Burqa Ban’: Legal Aspects of Local and General Prohibitions on Covering and Concealing One's Face in Belgium, in The Burqa Affair Across Europe: Between Public and Private Space 143 (Alessandro Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2013).

31 Anti-Gesichtsverhüllungsgesetz, 68 Bundesgesetzblatt 1 (2017), https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2017_I_68/BGBLA_2017_I_68.pdf; cf.Lizzie Dearden, Austrian parliament passes burqa ban seeing Muslim women face £130 fines for wearing full-face veils, Independent (May 18, 2017), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austria-burqa-ban-parliament-fines-150-full-face-veils-muslim-islam-niqabs-public-transport-a7742981.html; see also Bundesministerium für Inneres, Verbot der Gesichtsverhüllung trat am 1. Oktober 2017 in Österreich in Kraft (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.bmi.gv.at/verhuellungsverbot. Contra Flora Alvarado-Dupuy, Anti-Gesichtsverhüllungsgesetz: Zwang zur Entschleierung, 2017 Juridikum 152 (2017).

32 Harriet Agerholm, Dutch Parliament Approves Partial Burqa Ban in Public Places, Independent (Nov. 29, 2016), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-burqa-veil-ban-holland-votes-for-partial-restrictions-some-public-places-a7445656.html.

33 Raad van State [Council of State], Advies W04.11.0379/I, Kamerstukken II 2011/2012 33 165, 4, https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/zoeken-in-adviezen/tekst-advies.html?id=10095; Advies W04.15.0170/I, 15 July 2015, Kamerstukken II 2015/2016, 34 349, 4, https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/zoeken-in-adviezen/tekst-advies.html?id=11944. For background, see Overbeeke, Adriaan, Introducing a General Burqa Ban in the Netherlands, in The Burqa Affair Across Europe: Between Public and Private Space 101 (Alessandro Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2013).

34 Steven Wildberger, Switzerland Lawmakers Approve Public Burqa Ban, Jurist (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2016/09/switzerland-lawmakers-approve-public-burqa-ban.php.

35 Switzerland Moves a Step Closer to Voting on Nationwide Burqa Ban, The Local (Sept. 13, 2017), https://www.thelocal.ch/20170913/switzerland-moves-step-closer-to-voting-on-nationwide-burqa-ban.

36 Bulgaria Imposes Burqa Ban – And Will Cut Benefits of Women Who Defy It, Independent (Oct. 1, 2016), See also, Kosseva, Maya & Kyurkchieva, Iva, Religious Dress Codes: The Bulgarian Case, in Religion in Public Spaces: A European Perspective 255 (Silvio Ferrari & Sabrina Pastorelli eds., 2016).

37 EKRE Withdraws Bill Calling for Face Veil Ban, Err (July 2, 2017), http://news.err.ee/120601/ekre-withdraws-bill-calling-for-face-veil-ban.

38 Philip Oltermann, Angela Merkel Endorses Party's Call for Partial Ban on Burqa and Niqab, Guardian (Dec. 6, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/06/angela-merkel-cdu-partial-ban-burqa-niqab-german.

39 Gesetz zu bereichsspezifischen Regelungen der Gesichtsverhüllung und zur Änderung weiterer dienstrechtlicher Vorschriften, 8 Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] 1570 (2017).

40 Janina Lückoff, Das Burkaverbot läuft ins Leere, Tagesschau (Apr. 28, 2017), https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/burkaverbot-bundestag-103.html.

41 Gesetz über Verbote der Gesichtsverhüllung in Bayern, 2017 Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt [GVBl.] 362 (2017) https://www.verkuendung-bayern.de/gvbl/jahrgang:2017/heftnummer:12/seite:362.

42 Edith Kresta, Ganzkörpersprache statt Arabisch, Tageszeitung [taz] (Aug. 1, 2017), http://www.taz.de/!5438040/.

43 Resolution 1743 (2010) and Recommendation 1927 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe, Penalising Women Who Wear the Burqa Does Not Liberate Them (2011), https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/penalising-women-who-wear-the-burqa-does-not-liberate-th-3.

44 Conseil Constitutionnel [Constitutional Council], Déclaration de conformité [DC] decision No. 2010-613, Oct. 7, 2010, English translation available at http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2010613DCen2010_613dc.pdf (Fr.); for analysis, see, e.g., Gal-Or, Noemi, Is the Law Empowering or Patronizing Women? The Dilemma in the French Burqa Decision as the Tip of the Secular Law Iceberg, 6 Religion & Hum. Rts. 315 (2011). Cour Constitutionnelle [Constitutional Court], No. 145/2012, Dec. 6, 2012, http://www.const-court.be/public/f/2012/2012-145f.pdf (Belg.).

45 Tribunal Constitucional [Constitutional Tribunal], J.T.S., no. 4118/2011, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo Appeal, Feb. 4, 3013 (Spain); English summary in 2 Oxford J. L. & Religion 476 (2013). Cf. Robert Gould, Moors and Christians: Fear of Islam in Spanish Political Debates, in Fear of Muslims? International Perspectives on Islamophobia 191, 203–06 (Douglas Pratt & Rachel Woodlock eds. 2016); Agustín García Ureta, Signos Religiosos, Autonomía Municipal y Derechos Fundamentals: Comentarios Sobre la STS de 14 de Febrero de 2013 (prohibición de uso del velo integral), 191 Revista de Administración Pública 201 (2013).

46 S.A.S. v. France, App. No. 43835/11, 2014 III Eur. Ct. H.R. 314.

47 Id. at para. 129.

48 Id. (dissenting partly opinion by Judges Nussberger and Jäderblom).

49 Belcacemi & Oussar v. Belgium, App. No. 37798/13 (July 11, 2017), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; Dakir v. Belgium App. No. 4619/12 (July 11, 2017), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.

50 Id.

51 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Rise of the State as a Process of Secularization, in 2 Law, Religion and Democracy (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., forthcoming 2018); originally Böckenförde, Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisierung, in Der säkularisierte Staat 43, 71 (2007). An earlier translation is Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Rise of the State as a Process of Secularization, in State, Society and Liberty: Studies in Political Theory and Constitutional Law 26–46 (1991). In the new translation, Wagnis is translated as “gamble.”

52 See Kracht, Hermann-Josef Große, Fünfzig Jahre Böckenförde-Theorem. Eine bundesrepublikanische Bekenntnisformel im Streit der Interpretationen, in Religion—Recht—Republik. Studien zu Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde 155–83 (Hermann-Josef Große Kracht & Klaus Große Kracht eds., 2014) (summarizing analysis of the discussion).

53 See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, “Der freiheitliche säkularisierte Staat…”, in ‘Um der Freiheit willen…!‘. Kirche und Staat im 21. Jahrhundert 19–23 (Susanna Schmidt & Michael Wedell eds., 2002); see also Kracht, supra note 52, at 156–160; Christoph Möllers, Römischer Konziliarismus und politische Reform—Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde zum 80. Geburtstag, 4 Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte 107, 107–09 (2010); Jan-Werner Müller, What the Dictum Really Meant – and What it Might Mean for Us, 25 Constellations (forthcoming, 2018).

54 Böckenförde, supra note 53, at 72.

55 Tom Heneghan, Merkel Cites Christian Roots as Berlin Resumes Muslim Dialogue, Reuters (May 17, 2010), http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/17/merkel-cites-christian-roots-as-berlin-resumes-muslim-dialogue/.

56 Böckenförde, supra note 53, at 27–30.

57 Id. at 30.

58 Id. at 33.

59 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Critique of the Value-based Grounding of Law, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 217–34 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017); Böckenförde, Staatliches Recht und sittliche Ordnung, in Staat, Nation, Europa 208–32 (1999).

60 See Christentum und Demokratie (Manfred Brocker & Tine Stein eds., 2012).

61 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The State as an Ethical State, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 86, 101–04 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017); Böckenförde, supra note 53, at 31; Böckenförde, “Der freiheitliche säkularisierte Staat…”, in “Um der Freiheit willen…” – Kirche und Staat im 21. Jahrhundert – Festschrift für Burkhart Reichert 19–23 (Susanna Schmidt & Michael Wedell eds., 2002); see Künkler, Mirjam & Stein, Tine, Böckenförde's Political Theory of the State, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 38, 46–47 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017).

62 Böckenförde, The State as an Ethical State, supra note 61, at 105.

63 Ralf Dahrendorf, Freiheit und soziale Bindung, in Die liberale Gesellschaft 11 (Krysztof Michalski ed., 1993).

64 Gunter Teubner, How the Law Thinks: Toward a Constructivist Epistemology of Law, 23 L. & Soc. Rev. 727, 736 (1989).

65 Hans Kelsen, On the Basic Norm, 47 Cal. L. Rev. 109 (1957).

66 Deutsche Welle, supra note 1.

67 Ruprecht Polenz, Für eine verpflichtende Leitkultur gibt es in unserer Verfassung keine Rechtsgrundlage, Huffpost (Apr. 30, 2017), http://www.huffingtonpost.de/ruprecht-polenz/demaiziere-leitkultur-keine-rechtsgrundlage_b_16337804.html?.

69 Wofür steht ChrAfD?, ChrAfD, http://www.chrafd.de/index.php/grundsatzerklaerung.

70 Kracht, supra note 52, at 166.

71 See, Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, ‘Kopftuchstreit’ auf dem richtigen Weg?, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 723 (2001); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Case note, 59 Juristenzeitung 1181 (2004); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Bekenntnisfreiheit in einer pluralen Gesellschaft: Bemerkungen zum Kopftuchstreit in Deutschland, Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 173, 314–17 (2005); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Bekenntnisfreiheit in einer pluralen Gesellschaft und die Neutralitätspflicht des Staates, in Der Stoff, aus dem Konflikte sind: Debatten um das Kopftuch in Deutschland, österreich und der Schweiz 175, 187 (Sabine Berghahn & Petra Rostock eds., 2004); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Wie weit müssen wir Muslimen entgegenkommen?, in Verhärtete Fronten: Der schwere Weg zu einer vernünftigen Islamkritik 53 (Thorsten Gerald Schneiders ed., 2012). Böckenförde also expressed his views in various interviews, e.g. “Das Kopftuchverbot trifft auch Kreuz und Kippa”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Oct. 13, 2004; Das Kopftuch ist ein Stück Integration, Süddeutsche Zeitung, July 17, 2006; Ex-Verfassungsrichter: Kopftuch-Gesetze nicht vereinbar mit Religionsfreiheit, Tagesspiegel, July 15, 2007; “Freiheit ist ansteckend”, die Tageszeitung [taz], Sept. 23, 2009; “Freiheit ist ansteckend”, Frankfurter Rundschau, Nov. 2, 2010.

72 Böckenförde, Bekenntnisfreiheit in einer pluralen Gesellschaft und die Neutralitätspflicht des Staates, in Der Stoff, aus dem Konflikte sind: Debatten um das Kopftuch in Deutschland, österreich und der Schweiz 175, (Sabine Berghahn & Petra Rostock eds., 2004).

73 Id. at 183.

Religion und religiöses Bekenntnis zur Betätigung und Wirksamkeit im Bereich individueller und gesellschaftlicher Freiheit positiv freigegeben werden; sie vermögen daher, je nach der Kraft und dem Engagement ihrer Anhänger, durchaus gesellschaftliche und auch politische Bedeutung zu erlangen, entbehren keineswegs des potentiell öffentlichen charakters.

74 See infra Section D. III.

75 See, e.g., Böckenförde supra note 72, at 180:

Fremdheit besonderer Art, die nicht vergleichbar ist mit der früheren Distanz und vereinzelt auch Feindseligkeit zwischen den christlichen Bekenntnissen, die heute einem offenen Miteinander in gegenseitigem Respekt gewichen ist.

76 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 15, 2002, 104 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 337, 347. An English translation with annotation can be found in 60 Years German Basic Law: The German Constitution and its Court: Landmark Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in the Area of Fundamental Rights 276 (Jürgen Bröhmer, Clauspeter Hill & Marc Spitzkatz eds., 2d ed. 2012), http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_32858-1522-1-30.pdf?121123115540.

77 Böckenförde, supra note 72, at 184–86.

78 E.g., Böckenförde, Kreuze (Kruzifixe) im Gerichtssaal? Zum Verhältnis von staatlicher Selbstdarstellung und religiös weltanschaulicher Neutralität des Staates, 20 Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 119 (1975).

79 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, “Kopftuchstreit” auf dem richtigen Weg?, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 723, 727 (2001).

80 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, “Freiheit ist ansteckend”, Frankfurter Rundschau, Nov. 2, 2010, at 32.

81 See Michaels, supra note 7, at 233ff.

82 Ernest Renan, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? (1882); English translation in Shlomo Sand & Ernest Renan, On the Nation and the ‘Jewish People‘ 37, 63–64 (2010).

83 Id. at 64.

84 Böckenförde himself insisted that Renan's daily plebiscite went to the existence, not the essence of a nation. Böckenförde, supra note 59, at 34, 35. It seems doubtful whether Renan's conception of the nation does allow for that distinction.

85 Böckenförde, supra note 53, at 28–30.

86 Tribunal Supremo (T.S.), Feb. 6, 2013 (4118/2011) (Spain); see Gould, Robert, Islam Returns to Spain: Religious Diversity, Political Discourse and Women's Rights, 26 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 186 (2015). see also Resolution 1743 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe, no. 17.

87 Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Convivencia in Medieval Spain: A Brief History of an Idea, 3 Religion Compass 72 (2009).

88 Senator Baig i Torras, Diario de Sesiones del Senado, IX Legislatura 2010, number 85, June 23:4540, 4548, as cited in Gould, supra note 45, at 198.

89 Tribunal Supremo (T.S.), Feb. 6, 2013 (4118/2011) (Spain).

90 Id. (citing TEDH de la Gran Sala, Nov. 10, 2005, paras 106–8).

91 In the European Court of Human Rights, a similar argument garnered only two dissenting votes (supra note 48): “There is no right not to be shocked or provoked by different models of cultural or religious identity, even those that are very distant from the traditional French and European lifestyle.”

92 Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a (2007).

93 Hadi Enayat, Islam and Secularism in Post-Colonial Thought: a Cartography of Asadian Genealogies (2017).

94 John 18: 36.

95 Matthew 22: 21.

96 See Gelasian Doctrine, in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages (Bjork, Robert E. ed., 2010).

97 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Geschichte der Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie: Antike und Mittelalter 407 (2d ed. 2006); see the review of the first edition by Betsy Röben, 4 Ger. L. J. 183–84 (2003).

98 Such “othering” is a main theme in Günter Frankenberg, Case Study on Muslim Veils, in Comparative Law as Critique 113 (2016).

99 Böckenförde, supra note 51.

100 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Religion in a Civil Society, in Jews and Christians in a Pluralistic World 125, 127, 137 (Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde & Edward Shils eds., 1991). See also Böckenförde, supra note 51, at 41 (speaking about an “antique-Jewish-Christian tradition”).

101 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, The Persecution of the German Jews as a Civic Betrayal, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 309–317 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017); originally Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Die Verfolgung der deutschen Juden als Bürgerverrat, in Staat, Nation, Europa 276–86 (1999).

102 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Wie weit müssen wir Muslims entgegenkommen?, in Verhärtete Fronten 53–56 (Thorsten Gerald Schneiders ed., 2012). The text was published before with different titles as Ver(w)irrung im Kopftuchstreit, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Jan. 16, 2004, at 2; and as Bekenntnisfreiheit als Menschenrecht. Bemerkungen zum Kopftuchstreit in Deutschland, Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 173, 314–17 (2005).

103 Böckenförde, supra note 80. See also Michaels, Ralf, Gehört der Islam zu Deutschland? Beyond Böckenförde, Verfassungsblog (Mar. 22, 2018), https://verfassungsblog.de/gehoert-der-islam-zu-deutschland-beyond-boeckenfoerde/.

104 Böckenförde, supra note 80.

105 Böckenförde, supra note 51, at 39, 41.

106 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Religionsfreiheit ist kein Gottesgeschenk, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [FAZ], Apr. 22, 2009 (reviewing Ludwig Wick, Islam und Verfassungsstaat: Theologische Versöhnung mit der Moderne? (2009)).

107 Thus the critique by Jochen Müller, Wie sich der Staatsrechtler Böckenförde in Fragen Islam und Demokratie vergaloppiert (Aug. 28, 2009), http://islam.de/13735.php. Ludwig Wick, Der moderne Verfassungsstaat aus islamisch-theologischer Perspektive, in Demokratie und Islam. Theoretische und empirische Studien 203–16 (Ahmet Cavuldak, Oliver Hidalgo, Hildmann, Philipp W. & Holger Zapf eds., 2014) (emphasizing the limited influence of theological positions on sociological realities).

108 See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Europa und die Türkei. Die europäische Union am Scheideweg (2004), https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/assets/boell.de/images/download_de/Boeckenfoerde_Arendt_2004.pdf.

109 Id.

110 Böckenförde, supra note 59.

111 Böckenförde, supra note 51; see also Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Die Nation: Identität in Differenz, in Staat, Nation, Europa 34, 57 (1999); Böckenförde, The Future of Political Autonomy, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 324, 328 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017); originally Die Zukunft politischer Autonomie, in Staat, Nation, Europa 103 (1999). For discussion, see Hanschmann, Felix, Der Begriff der Homogenität in der Verfassungslehre und Europarechtswissenschaft 41 (2008).

112 Künkler & Stein, supra note 61, at 22–25.

113 Böckenförde, The Future of Political Autonomy, supra note 111, at 332 (citing Adolf Arndt, Christentum und freiheitlicher Sozialismus, in Politische Reden und Schriften 128 (Horst Ehmke & Carlo Schmid eds., 1976)).

114 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932, 2007).

115 See, most pronouncedly, Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, The Concept of the Political: A Key to Understanding Carl Schmitt's Constitutional Theory, in 1 Constitutional and Political Theory: Selected Writings 69 (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., 2017); originally Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Der Begriff des Politischen als Schlüssel zum staatsrechtlichen Werk Carl Schmitts, in Recht, Staat Freiheit 344 (1991).

116 Böckenförde, The Future of Political Autonomy, supra note 111, at 331; see also Böckenförde The Concept of the Political, supra note 115, at 71–72; Klaus GROßE Kracht, Unterwegs zum Staat: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde auf dem Weg durch die intellektuelle Topographie der frühen Bundesrepublik, 1949–1964, in Religion—Recht—Republik, supra note 52, at 11, 18–20.

117 Michaels, supra note 7, at 230ff., 243–44.

118 See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Politische Theorie und politische Theologie: Bemerkungen zu ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis, in Kirche und christlicher Glaube in den Herausforderungen der Zeit 317 (2004), translated in Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Political Theory and Political Theology: Comments on their reciprocal relationship, in 2 Law, Religion and Democracy: Selected Writings (Mirjam Künkler & Tine Stein eds., forthcoming 2018).

119 Cohen, Jean L., On the Genealogy and Legitimacy of Politically Liberal Secular Polity: Böckenförde and the Asadians, Constellations (forthcoming); see Gordon, Peter E., Between Christian Democracy and Critical Theory: Habermas, Böckenförde, and the Dialectics of Secularization in Postwar Germany, 80 Soc. Res. 173 (2013).

* Arthur Larson Professor of Law, Duke University. Thanks are due to Mirjam Künkler and Tine Stein for inviting this contribution and for immensely helpful feedback, information, and criticism, as well as to Peter Caldwell, Aline-Florence Manent, and Noah Strothe for inspiring debate, and Nora Markard and an anonymous reviewer for very useful suggestions. Marc Dietrich provided valuable research assistance.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

German Law Journal
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2071-8322
  • URL: /core/journals/german-law-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed