ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

ancing equality with other rights or interests, the proposed
model places equality on both sides of the scale.
Meital Pinto: The Absence of the Right to
Culture of Minorities within Minorities in Israel:
A Tale of a Cultural Dissent Case
Meital Pinto’s talk is titled ‘The Absence of the Right
to Culture of Minorities within Minorities in Israel: A Tale
of a Cultural Dissent Case’. It focuses on the Israeli
Plonit case concerning a Muslim woman who wished
to be represented by a female arbitrator in a Shari’a
Court. The Shari’a Court of Appeals denied her request
and decided that Shari’a Law permits only men to serve
as arbitrators. Plonit petitioned the Israeli Supreme
Court, which accepted her petition and decided that
the Shari’a Court of Appeals’ decision infringed her
right to equality.
The paper sheds a light on a crucial matter that is
absent in the decision; namely, the right to culture of
Muslim women, who are a vulnerable members of a minority
group in Israel, and therefore constitute a ‘minority
within minority’. Analysing the case in terms of Plonit’s
right to culture, in addition to her right to equality stresses
the main issues at the heart of the legal debate, which
are the minority culture’s norms and practices, and the
right of the minority within minority to influence and
shape them as much as the majority within the minority.
Anne Köhler: Public Interest, Gender Equality
and Freedom of Religion
Considerations of gender equality play a more and
more important role in case law on freedom of religion.
In well known cases of the European Court of Human
Rights and of German and Swiss Courts regarding
school exemptions or the burqa, niqab and headscarf,
considerations of gender equality are woven into considerations
of classic public interest. In several, but not
all cases, they serve as an argument in order to restrict
freedom of religion. But how are gender-arguments
connected with the realm of public interest, considering
that they do not fit easily in the traditional dichotomy
of public and private? The paper explores the uneasy
relationship between gender equality as a public interest
restricting religious liberty and the emancipatory
dimension of the argument of gender equality.
Tehila Sagy: Theorizing the Arbitration and
Mediation Services (Equality) Bill
This presentation would theorize an English legislative
initiative. The Arbitration and Mediatio Services
(Equality) Bill in relation to the values of the liberal state.
The Bill is an attempt to resolve the tension between the
rights of cultural and religious groups to accommodations
in the form of private dispute resolution and between
the rights of women who belong to these minority
groups. More specifically, the lecture would provide
a UK-specific and contemporary lens through which to
explore the tension between women’s rights and accommodations
of religions by way of judicial autonomy.
69 YOU’RE NOT WELCOME HERE!
CONFLICTING CONSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVES ON BANISHING
SUSPECTED JIHADISTS IN THE
EUROPEAN UNION
The panel explores issues surrounding deprivation of
citizenship from a number of different perspectives. In
particular, we seek to understand the legal, institutional
and theoretical problems associated with deprivation
of citizenship that fall at the interface between EU law,
national law and fundamental rights. Each of the paper
elaborates a different problematique associated with
depriving individuals of their Union citizenship with the
ultimate aim of reconciling these different perspectives
into a coherent perspective of what having European
Union citizenship means in a variety of contexts.
Participants Alastair MacIver
Juha Tuovinen
Zane Rasnaca
Name of Chair Juha Tuovinen
Room BE2 326
Alastair MacIver: Constitutional Disagreement
about Citizen Terror Suspects: Chauvinism or
Pluralism?
In Pham it was argued that depriving a UK citizen
suspected of terrorism of his nationality was unlawful
since it made him stateless and contravened EU
proportionality. The UKSC dismissed the appeal and
hinted that a broad reading of Rottmann subjecting
denationalization to EU review without a cross-border
element might be ruled inapplicable for intruding on
citizenship powers integral to the identity of the nation
State. This potential ultra vires review of CJEU case law
has been called judicial chauvinism repudiating legal
pluralism. Rejecting this view it is claimed the elevation
of Hart’s rule of recognition to principle of the UK
constitution is not insular monism but grounds constitutional
disagreement between equal legal orders with
divergent conceptions of constitutionalism and final
authority. This idea of constitutional conflict inspires
a spirit of caution and cooperation in the UKSC’s use
of EU law expressed in procedural and substantive
concessions that embrace heterarchy.
Juha Tuovinen: Feast or Pham-ine? –
Substantive Reasoning in Deprivation of
Citizenship Cases
The paper critically evaluates the understanding of
the principle of proportionality in the Pham v Minister of
Home Affairs judgment by the UK Supreme Court. The
case concerned the question whether an order depriving
a British citizen of his citizenship was lawful. This
paper critiques the understanding of proportionality put
forward by the court from three different angles. The
first part of the paper takes issue with the way in which
Concurring panels 108