Women, quotas, and constitutions : a comparative study of affirmative action for women under American, German, EC, and international law
著者
書誌事項
Women, quotas, and constitutions : a comparative study of affirmative action for women under American, German, EC, and international law
Kluwer Law International, 1999
- タイトル別名
-
Women, quotas, and constitutions : a comparative study of American, German, EC, and international law
Women, quotas, and constitutions : a comparative study of affirmative action for women under American, German, European Community, and international law
大学図書館所蔵 全24件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references (p. 357-393) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
Providing an overview of the American and German constitutional regimes of affirmative action for women, this work describes international and European Community rules which encourage and limit affirmative action taken by individual states. Comparison of the legal orders reveals a paradox. Affirmative action for women in America has existed longer and is more widespread and more institutionalized, although the spirit of the American Constitution conflicts with such policies more than the German Constitution. The American Constitution contains no clause explicitly guaranteeing gender equality. It establishes a principle of containment - that the government is prohibited from certain action - and does not acknowledge positive governmental duties. Individual freedom is of primary importance, and the socially-dependent nature of the individual is barely recognized. In contrast, the German Constitution contains a gender-specific equality clause which is interpreted by some as allowing quotas as a form of preferential treatment.
German constitutional law also includes the principle that the state has affirmative duties, the principle of the social state (Sozialstaat), and the merit principle for hiring and promotion within the civil service. The discrepancy between policy and constitutional principle suggests that the formulation of policy is driven less by constitutional principles than by exterior elements such as the political and social situation, which apparently have led the United States to implement affirmative action despite a relatively weak constitutional basis, and Germany to refrain from implementing affirmative action despite relatively strong constitutional support. The book also explores the utility of comparative law, its scope and its limits.
It concludes that one should not overestimate the utility of comparative law as a tool of social engineering that prepares the adaptation of foreign policies to solve the apparently similar problems of different countries; the strength of comparative law lies rather in its critical potential, and thus legal comparison mirrors the limits of law as a vehicle of social reform - limits particularly obvious in the context of overcoming discrimination against women.
目次
- Methodology
- affirmative action defined
- affirmative-action law within the constitutional framework of the United States of America
- affirmative-action law within the German constitutional framework
- affirmative (positive) action in European Community law
- affirmative action for women under international law.
「Nielsen BookData」 より