Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretative Choices and Objectivity-Oriented Legal Discourse: A Strategic Analysis of the ECtHR Ruling on the French Face Veil Ban

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On the 1st of July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the French legislation banning the wearing in public of the full-face veil. The article describes the intriguing justification given by the Court, notably the argument that the ban was justified as necessary to protect the principle of “living together”, and analyses it as an attempt to avoid rhetorically costlier justifications, such as those mobilising the principles of gender equality and human dignity. The analysis is undertaken in the light of the general hypothesis that one of the factors presiding over interpretative choices, in complex legal cases, is a strategic reasoning taking into account, on the one hand, the benefits and costs of each argumentative possibility for the persuasiveness and objectivity of the justification to be given in the case pending before the Court, and, on the other hand, the corresponding losses and gains of future interpretative power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology the production and the maintenance of a “rhetoric of autonomy, neutrality and universality” are considered to be the very principle of constitution and operation of the “legal field” (le champ juridique). The neutralisation and universalization effects thus produced provide the legal decision “with the symbolic effectiveness possessed by any action when it is recognised as legitimate since its part of arbitrariness remains ignored” [2: 8; translated by the author].

  2. The distinction between sceptical and rationalistic theories of interpretation is of course ambiguous and relative, but still useful to organise the panorama of contemporary discussions [13: 54–60].

  3. In the National Assembly there were 335 votes in favour, one vote against and three abstentions; in the Senate, 246 votes in favour and one abstention.

  4. I could not trace back the genealogy of that concept, but it seems that it emerged in the context of the parliamentary discussions preceding the drafting of both the French and Belgian bills, as a possible derivation from the notion of “immaterial” public order (see §§ 17, 25 and 42 of the judgment).

  5. Eva Brems’ article published shortly before the judgment was delivered gives us a good sense of what kind of issues the Court was expected to address. Aiming at discussing “the possible outcome of S.A.S. v. France, by assessing whether the arguments advanced by European Governments to ban face veils can pass the human rights test instituted by the Court”, Professor Brems underscored the various weaknesses of the argument based on the principle of “living together”, and pointed at the empirical and theoretical variables of the women dignity issue as what was likely to be ultimately decisive for the Court’s conclusion [4].

  6. According to a report released by a French parliamentary commission on the 26th of January 2010, almost no women wore the full-face veil before 2000, whereas about 1900 were concerned by the end of 2009 (of whom around 270 were living in French overseas territories). See: Assemblée Nationale, Rapport d’information no. 2262, www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/liste/rap-info/2262.asp, accessed 12 septembre 2014.

  7. Of course, such a sharp formulation of the symbolic reach of the case is only made possible by a number of reductionisms and simplifications. Neither the Islamic culture nor the European human rights tradition correspond to a homogeneous set of practices or ideas, and many aspects of the discussion on the burqa ban illustrate the impossibility of a linear confrontation between them.

  8. Individual consciousness disturbing or socially explosive religious differences in contemporary Europe are at the heart of two of the most hailed literary releases of winter 2015: Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission and Ian McEwan’s The Children Act.

  9. An institutional particularity of the ECtHR is the fact that the judge elected in respect of the concerned State sits as an ex officio member both of the Grand Chamber and of a seven-judge Chamber (Rule 24, 1,b of the Rules of Court and Article 26, §4 of the Convention), which might bring additional concerns with neutrality. However, since the judgments are delivered as a collective work (apart from the dissenting opinions), it is difficult to assess the influence of individual judges on the rhetorical structure of the arguments.

  10. Both French and English versions of the letter are available at http://www.ldif.asso.fr/index.php?theme=laicite&n=558. Accessed 20 April 2015.

  11. See, for example, McCrea [15].

  12. See also, in the same sense, Rozemberg [18].

References

  1. Bidar, Abdennour. 2009. Aucune justification religieuse à la burqa. Le Monde. http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2009/06/29/aucune-justification-religieuse-a-la-burqa-par-abdennour-bidar_1213022_3232.html. Accessed 2 Aug 2015.

  2. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. La force du droit. Eléments pour une sociologie du champ juridique. Annales de la recherche en sciences sociales 64: 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Les juristes, gardiens de l’hyprocrisie collective. In Normes juridiques et régulation sociale, ed. F. Chazel, and J. Commaile, 95–99. Paris: L.G.D.J.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brems, Eva. 2014. Face Veil Bans in the European Courts of Human Rights: The importance of empirical findings. Journal of Law and Policy XXII 2: 517–551.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brems, Eva. 2014b. S.A.S. v. France as a problematic precedent. Strasbourg Observers Blog. http://strasbourgobservers.com/2014/07/09/s-a-s-v-france-as-a-problematic-precedent/. Accessed 20 March 2015.

  6. Burney, Uzma S. 2015. European Court of Human Rights Upholds France’s Ban on the Full-Face Veil. American Society of International Law – Insights, 19 (online issue). http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/19/issue/3/european-court-human-rights-upholds-frances-ban-full-face-veil. Accessed 10 March 2015.

  7. Chaib, Saïla Oual, and Lourdes Peroni. 2014. S.A.S. v. France: Missed Opportunity to Do Full Justice to Women Wearing a Face Veil. Strasbourg Observers Blog. http://strasbourgobservers.com/2014/07/03/s-a-s-v-france-missed-opportunity-to-do-full-justice-to-women-wearing-a-face-veil/. Accessed 20 March 2015.

  8. Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Herman.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ducrot, Oswald. 1980. Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gauchet, Michel. 1998. La religion dans la démocratie. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Guidère, Mathieu (ed.). 2009. Traduction et communication orientée. Paris: Le Manuscrit.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Just, Gustavo. 2005. Interpréter les théories de l’interprétation. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Maingueneau, Dominique. 2014. Discours et analyse du discours: une introduction. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  15. McCrea, Ronan. 2014. The French Ban on Public Face-Veiling: Enlarging the margin of appreciation. EU Law Analysis Blog. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com.br/2014/07/the-french-ban-on-public-face-veiling.html. Accessed 20 March 2015.

  16. MEMRI—L’observatoire du Moyen-Orient. 2010. Les penseurs musulmans francophones contre le port du voile intégral. http://www.memri.fr/2010/05/04/les-penseurs-musulmans-francophones-contre-le-port-du-voile-integral/. Accessed 2 Aug 2015.

  17. Onfray, Michel. 2015. Une vraie critique de la religion: Chiche Mélenchon! Libération (Tribune). http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2015/03/09/chiche-melenchon_1217459. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.

  18. Rozemberg, Joshua. 2014. Niqabs ban: Fine ‘margin’. The Law Society Gazette Blog. http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/niqabs-ban-fine-margin/5042031.article. Accessed 21 March 2015.

  19. Sourioux, Jean-Louis, and Lerat Pierre. 2005. L’analyse de texte. Méthode générale et applications au droit. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Troper, Michel, and Véronique Champeil-Desplats. 2005. Proposition pour une théorie des contraintes juridiques. In Théorie des contraintes juridiques, ed. M. Troper, et al., 11–23. Paris: Bruylant/L.G.D.J.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vickers, Lucy. 2014. Conform or be confined: S.A.S. v. France. Oxford Human Rights Hub Blog. http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/conform-or-be-confined-s-a-s-v-france/. Accessed 14 March 2015.

  22. Wiese, Kirsten. 2014. EGMR bestätigt Burkaverbot: Was braucht es für ein demokratisches Zusammenleben? Legal Tribune Online. http://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/egmr-urteil-4383511-burkaverbot-frankreich/. Accessed 14 March 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

    Gustavo Just

Authors
  1. Gustavo Just
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustavo Just.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Just, G. Interpretative Choices and Objectivity-Oriented Legal Discourse: A Strategic Analysis of the ECtHR Ruling on the French Face Veil Ban. Int J Semiot Law 29, 577–594 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9443-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9443-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation