荷蘭時間八月二十日是我的論文繳交截止日。

趕在八月十八日終於將論文寫完,其間仍有許多思慮不盡圓滿之處。
這之間有機會幾次跟我司法院老同事惠玲,就德國憲法與歐盟法廣泛交換意見,也要謝謝她。
交了之後,我還是會依指導教授的意見再行修改。

現就論文第一章序論部份,就教於大家。
有什麼想法歡迎批評指教。

宏誠

THE DORY DECISION:
UNFINISHED VARIATION IN EC NON-DISCRIMINATION LAW
AND ITS CODA TO GAY MEN IN THE ARMED FORCES

Table of Contents



Declaration Statementiii
Acknowledgementsiv
Table of Casesvii

I. Introduction1
1.1 Fighting begins… / 1
1.2 Arms in hands: issues, approaches and structures / 3

II. Men as a defender: missing piece of male-only conscription in the Dory decision / 6
2.1 Introduction: sex equality in the Community law / 6
2.2 Facts and legal contexts / 7
2.3 Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl / 9
2.4 Judgment of ECJ / 10
2.5 Comment / 12
2.5.1 Issues of the division of competences / 13
2.5.2 Sex role of men to be a protector exclusively? / 13
2.5.3 Core issue but ignored on purpose: conscription for women? / 14
2.5.4 Right be violated or merely delayed? / 14
2.5.5 Equal treatment: right or obligation? / 15
2.5.6 Military service v.s. civilian service / 15
2.5.7 Homosexuals in the military / 15

III. Gay Men between defender and deviant: lessons from sisters in arms and ECtHR’s case law / 17
3.1 Defender as a worker protected: lessons from the ECJ’s case law / 17
3.1.1 Marguerite Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary / 17
3.1.1.1 Facts and legal background / 18
3.1.1.2 Judgment of ECJ / 18
3.1.1.3 First sex role case: additional risk for women wearing firearms? / 21

3.1.2 Angela Maria Sirdar v. The Army Board and Secretary of State of Defense / 22
3.1.2.1 Facts / 22
3.1.2.2 Judgment of ECJ / 23
3.1.2.3 Over-exclusive and discretion scrutiny / 23
3.1.2.4 Cook or defender? sex role of women as weaker! / 24

3.1.3 Tanja Kreil v. Germany / 26
3.1.3.1 Facts / 26
3.1.3.2 Judgment of ECJ / 27

3.2 Deviant has its own privacy: lessons from the ECtHR’s case law / 29
3.2.1 Gay right in the ECtHR / 29
3.2.2 Gay men in the military: the right to respect private life / 30
3.2.3 Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. U.K. / 31
3.2.4 Smith and Grady v. U.K. / 34

3.3 Military culture and structural discrimination / 37

3.4 Gay men in the armed forces under EC law / 40

IV. Sex role as a target for EC non-discrimination law / 42
4.1 A comparative perspective of sex role and scrutiny standards for sexual discrimination in U.S. Supreme Court / 42
4.1.1 Man should be woman’s protector and defender? / 42
4.1.2 Sex role as a “hardcore exemption” of sexual discrimination / 43
4.2 Real difference and statistical evidence / 45

V. Conclusions / 48
5.1 Summary / 48
5.2 Recommendations / 49

Bibliography / 50

narzissmus 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()