Litigating the Politics of Human Rights: Contemporary U.S. Culture Wars on Trial: 121 (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, 121) - Tapa dura

Acerca del autor

Dr. Sonja Grover is professor at the Faculty of Education at Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada. She graduated with her doctorate from University of Toronto in 1976. She is an associate editor of the International Journal of Human Rights. She has published 19 law books with leading academic law publishers (inclusive of two in press in 2024) , single edited 5 special issues of the International Journal of Human Rights and for an additional special issue of the IJHR served as co-editor and has published well over 70 law and interdisciplinary human rights articles in prestigious peer reviewed international law and interdisciplinary human rights journals since 2001.

De la contraportada

The cases analysed involve litigation concerning a disparate range of contemporary US culture wars including equity in access to public services unrestricted by religious bias, resistance to the teaching of historical facts relating to racial tensions in America including the so-called 'critical race theory' debate, the right of schoolchildren to exposure concerning a diversity of views, current USSC litigation about US university admissions policy that considers 'race' (ethnicity) as one factor amongst many in admission, contemporary cases concerning the constitutionality of US abortion law grounded on Roe v Wade and the scope of State and indigenous sovereign powers These contemporary culture war US landmark cases are then compared to similar cases in non-US jurisdictions and courts to consider in more depth the underlying core issues in these cases.

The book highlights the risk to a democracy of recasting fundamental human rights litigation as essentially nothing more than the sorting out of political quagmires and cultural conflicts best left to the discretion of government rather than the courts. Then, the major risk is that constitutional controversies will increasingly not be decided by an independent judiciary but rather by self-interested politicians as the courts more often than not decline to weigh in on highly sensitive human rights controversies. A further risk is that instead such cases will be decided through a judicial majoritarian political lens rather than a largely apolitical consensus judicial opinion constructed by both philosophically left leaning (so-called liberal) and right leaning (so-called conservative) jurists.