Ocena stanu przestrzegania praw człowieka w azjatyckich i pozaeuropejskich byłych republikach Związku Radzieckiego na forum Rady Praw Człowieka ONZ

Współautorstwo: Sękowska-Kozłowska, Katarzyna

Uniwersalne standardy ochrony praw człowieka a funkcjonowanie systemów politycznych w dobie wyzwań globalnych. 1 / redakcja naukowa Jerzy Jaskiernia, Kamil Spryszak. Toruń : Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2016, s. 323-341.

Referat z VII Międzynarodowej Konferencji Naukowej pt. "Systemy ochrony praw człowieka: europejski i azjatyckie : inspiracja uniwersalna - uwarunkowania kulturowe - bariery realizacyjne", 14-15 kwietnia 2015 r., Warszawa.

Sprawozdanie z ogólnopolskiej konferencji naukowej "Polska 2015 - stan realizacji zobowiązań w zakresie ochrony praw człowieka" (Poznań, 16 XI 2015)

Państwo i Prawo 2016, nr 10, s. 136-137.

Communism equals or versus nazism? : Europe’s unwholesome legacy in Strasbourg

East European Politics and Societies 2016, t. 30, nr 1, s. 74-96.

The accession of post-communist states into the Council of Europe system enlarged greatly the territory of effective protection of human rights in Europe and at the same time compelled the European Court of Human Rights to address the current effects of past violations of human rights by communist regimes. It gave the Court an opportunity to establish a legal standard of how to deal with matters such as the public presence of communist symbols and insignia, de-registration of neo-Communist parties, and the relevance of past membership in the Communist parties for an exercise of electoral rights in a newly democratized state. This opportunity was at the same time a challenge, and the Court was less than successful in meeting this challenge, despite the fact that it had already established the relevant legal standards when deciding about the cases triggered by the Nazi past. Without making it explicit, and without articulating openly the relevant differences, the Court has not established any equivalence between legal treatments of the aftermath of the two types of criminal regimes in the European recent past. The article discusses three recent cases belonging to these categories and concludes that there is a clear contrast between the Court’s treatment of “post-communist” cases and the same Court’s earlier treatment of equivalent “post-Nazi” cases; the article offers some explanations for the discrepancy which reflects a broader dualism in European collective memory of the past.

Das Verbot der „homosexuellen Propaganda" als Verletzung von Schutzstandards der Menschenrechte

"Sexuelle Orientierung" als Diskriminierungsgrund : Regelungsbedarf in Deutschland und Polen? / herausgegeben von Claus Dieter Classen, Dagmar Richter und Bernard Łukańko. Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, copyright 2016, s. 67-77.

Victimhood of the Nation as a Legally Protected Value in Transitional States : Poland as a Case Study

Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics 2016, t. 6, nr 2, s. 45-61.

Współautorstwo: Śledzińska-Simon, Anna

The memory of the past is always vital for building national identity in transitional contexts. Yet, the preservation of a particular representation of the national history may lead not only to distortion of the self-identification process, but also to distortion of rights protection. Taking Poland as a case study, we aim to explain mechanisms of using criminal laws for historical assessment and show instances when victimhood became a legally protected value used to justify limitations of free speech and academic research. We argue that the law criminalising defamation of the Polish Nation, and also the decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, were symptoms of frustration and fear against opening and engaging in an honest public debate on recent history, which is necessary for establishing not only the fundamentals of transitional justice, but more importantly, for building mutual trust in a democratic society.

Stalinism and Communism Equals or Versus Nazism? : Central and Eastern European Unwholesome Legacy in ECtHR

East European Politics and Societies 2016, t. 30, nr 1, s. 74-96.

The accession of post-communist states into the Council of Europe system enlarged greatly the territory of effective protection of human rights in Europe and at the same time compelled the European Court of Human Rights to address the current effects of past violations of human rights by communist regimes. It gave the Court an opportunity to establish a legal standard of how to deal with matters such as the public presence of communist symbols and insignia, de-registration of neo-Communist parties, and the relevance of past membership in the Communist parties for an exercise of electoral rights in a newly democratized state. This opportunity was at the same time a challenge, and the Court was less than successful in meeting this challenge, despite the fact that it had already established the relevant legal standards when deciding about the cases triggered by the Nazi past. Without making it explicit, and without articulating openly the relevant differences, the Court has not established any equivalence between legal treatments of the aftermath of the two types of criminal regimes in the European recent past. The article discusses three recent cases belonging to these categories and concludes that there is a clear contrast between the Court’s treatment of “post-ommunist” cases and the same Court’s earlier treatment of equivalent “post-Nazi” cases; the article offers some explanations for the discrepancy which reflects a broader dualism in European collective memory of the past.

Historical Truth

Culture and human rights : the Wroclaw commentaries / edited by Andreas Joh. Wiesand, Kalliopi Chainoglou, Anna Śledzińska-Simon ; in collaboration with Yvonne Donders. Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter, copyright 2016, s. 177-178.

The European Court of Human Rights on Nazi and Soviet Past in Central and Eastern Europe

Polish Political Science Yearbook 2016, t. 45, nr 1, s. 117-129.

Współautorstwo: Baranowska, Grażyna

The article demonstrates how references to Nazi and Soviet past are perceived and evaluated by the European Court of Human Rights. Individual cases concerning Holocaust and Nazism, which the Court has examined so far, are compared here to judgments rendered with regard to Communist regime. The article proves that the Court treats more leniently state interference with freedom of expression when memory about Nazism and Holocaust is protected than when a post-Communist state wants to preserve a critical memory about the regime. The authors of the article agree with the attitude of the Court which offers a wide margin of appreciation to states restrictively treating references to Nazism and Holocaust, including comparisons to the Holocaust, Nazism or fascism used as rhetorical devices. At the same time they postulate that other totalitarian systems should be treated by the Court equally.