Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Burger Court: Counter-Revolution or Confirmation?, ed. by B. Schwartz. Oxford University Press, New York - Oxford 1998. XI + 316 p.

The Burger Court: Counter-Revolution or Confirmation?, ed. by B. Schwartz. Oxford University... COMPTES RENDUS 607 Arabia abstained because of the way Article 16 on equal marriage rights had been drafted and because it opposed the right to change one’s religion or belief contained in Article 18. South Africa abstained because it realized the Declaration was incompatible with the apartheid system. But the Communist states of Eastern Europe (USSR, Ukrainia, Byelo- russia, Poland and Yugoslavia) abstained essentially because they considered that the Declaration should have more explicitly condemned fascism. In their view fascists should have specifically been denied the right of freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association and the right to use democratic institutions (p. 23–24). In sum, Morsink has performed a real service. In the form of a lively chronicle of the drafting of the Declaration, he has produced a work of enduring value. The scholarly community and the human rights movement should be grateful and correct their institu- tional memories accordingly. Maastricht Menno T. Kamminga T HE B URGER C OURT : C OUNTER -R EVOLUTION OR C ONFIRMATION ?, ed. by B. Schwartz. Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford 1998. XI + 316 p. This book is the second volume of a trilogy that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Legal History Review / Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit Brill

The Burger Court: Counter-Revolution or Confirmation?, ed. by B. Schwartz. Oxford University Press, New York - Oxford 1998. XI + 316 p.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-burger-court-counter-revolution-or-confirmation-ed-by-b-schwartz-Pnm0NOqG0l

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0040-7585
eISSN
1571-8190
DOI
10.1163/15718190019684695
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COMPTES RENDUS 607 Arabia abstained because of the way Article 16 on equal marriage rights had been drafted and because it opposed the right to change one’s religion or belief contained in Article 18. South Africa abstained because it realized the Declaration was incompatible with the apartheid system. But the Communist states of Eastern Europe (USSR, Ukrainia, Byelo- russia, Poland and Yugoslavia) abstained essentially because they considered that the Declaration should have more explicitly condemned fascism. In their view fascists should have specifically been denied the right of freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association and the right to use democratic institutions (p. 23–24). In sum, Morsink has performed a real service. In the form of a lively chronicle of the drafting of the Declaration, he has produced a work of enduring value. The scholarly community and the human rights movement should be grateful and correct their institu- tional memories accordingly. Maastricht Menno T. Kamminga T HE B URGER C OURT : C OUNTER -R EVOLUTION OR C ONFIRMATION ?, ed. by B. Schwartz. Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford 1998. XI + 316 p. This book is the second volume of a trilogy that

Journal

The Legal History Review / Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du DroitBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.