ePBP Science Hub

dr hab. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias

PUBLIKACJE:

➥ 2025

➥ 2024

➥ 2023

➥ 2022

➥ 2021

➥ 2020

➥ 2019

➥ 2018

➥ 2017

➥ 2016

➥ 2015

➥ 2014

➥ 2013

➥ 2012

➥ 2011

➥ 2010

➥ 2009

➥ 2008

➥ 2007

FORMA

➥ MONOGRAFIE

➥ REDAKCJE

➥ ROZDZIAŁY W PRACACH ZBIOROWYCH

➥ ARTYKUŁY

➥ GLOSA

➥ SPRAWOZDANIE

➥ RECENZJA

➥ DOKTORAT

Cechy chronione w prawie antydyskryminacyjnym Unii Europejskiej : pochodzenie rasowe i etniczne

Współautorstwo: Śledzińska-Simon, Anna

Prawo antydyskryminacyjne Unii Europejskiej / redakcja Anna Zawidzka-Łojek, Aleksandra Szczerba ; autorzy: Anna Błaszczak-Banasiak, Tomasz Dudek, Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, Maciej Kułak, Justyna Maliszewska-Nienartowicz, Małgorzata Szeroczyńska, Anna Śledzińska-Simon, Dorota Pudzianowska, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Aleksandra Szczerba, Anna Zawidzka-Łojek. Warszawa : Instytut Wydawniczy EuroPrawo, 2021, s. 171-202.

☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

The concept of vulnerability in the United Nations human rights treaty bodies protection system

Współautorstwo: Baranowska, Grażyna

A. Gliszczyńska-Grabias and G. Baranowska in the chapter entitled “The concept of vulnerability in the United Nations human rights treaty bodies protection system” present the comprehensive analysis of treaty provisions under which certain groups are named and recognized as vulnerable, offering also a general overview of the invocation of the concept of vulnerability in the decisions of selected UN treaty bodies. Next, the authors review who so far has been considered vulnerable by the treaty bodies and conclude with defining the attitude of selected UN treaty bodies towards the notion of vulnerability.

☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Never Again as a cornerstone of the Strasbourg system : the traces of the Holocaust in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights : current challenges in historical perspective / edited by Helmut P. Aust and Esra Demir Gürsel. - Chektenham, UK; Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar, 2021 , s. 200-220.

The European system of human rights protection emerged as a remedy for the destruction of the fundamental human values during World War II. Today, seventy years after its establishment, it is worth asking if and how the mighty call for ‘Never Again’ has been reflected in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Did the Strasbourg Court indeed come up with mechanisms effectively addressing the challenges posed by Europe’s totalitarian past? How does the memory of the Holocaust still influence the judgments handed down by the Court? It seems such questions are particularly pertinent in present times of dire threats to human rights, during the swelling tidal wave of nationalism and rekindled anti-Semitism and xenophobia. The chapter seeks such answers by looking at the Courts’s jurisprudence in cases that touch upon diverse aspects of the Holocaust’s aftermath and the scope of protection against racist discrimination and hatred.

10.4337/9781839108341.00019 ☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Cytowania

The Missing Post-Holocaust Traces in Recent Case Law of the European Courts

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2021, t. XLI, s. 213–234.

The Holocaust constitutes one of the most powerful symbols in the history of humankind. Its memory, and in particular its irrefutable relationship with anti-Semitism, should trigger strict scrutiny every time anti-Semitic attitudes re-emerge, even if disguised as seemingly harmless words or actions. This applies also to legal measures, neutral on their face but which, in their consequences, may have an adverse effect on Jews, and thus raise the suspicion of anti-Semitic implications. Such implications are visible in the recent phenomena that serve as the two case studies for the present article: boycotts of Israel and bans on ritual slaughter (Shechita). While in the case of anti Israeli boycotts, the core arguments relate to international anti-discrimination law and policies, in relations to the Shechita bans claims about violation of the religious freedom of observant Jews prevail. At the same time, in both cases strong references to the Holocaust and the memory of its victims are being invoked, allowing one to raise objections as to the status of the relevant legal developments. Here again history and memory enter into the public and legal discussions, legislative processes, and courtrooms.

10.24425/PYIL.2022.14247

LINK BEZPOŚREDNI ☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Prawo antydyskryminacyjne Unii Europejskiej

Współautorstwo: Zawidzka-Łojek, Anna; Szczerba, Aleksandra; Błaszczak-Banasiak, Anna; Dudek, Tomasz; Kułak, Maciej; Maliszewska-Nienartowicz, Justyna; Śledzińska-Simon, Anna; Pudzianowska, Dorota; Śmiszek, Krzysztof; Szeroczyńska, Małgorzata

Warszawa : Instytut Wydawniczy EuroPrawo, 2021

Seria: Strategie UE

ISBN 9788376271972

348, [2] strony. Bibliografie przy rozdziałach, orzecznictwo na stronach 339-348.

Rozdziały lub artykuły tej książki skatalogowano pod własnymi tytułami. Dostępne pod tytułem pracy zbiorowej.

☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Memory Laws and Memory Wars in Poland, Russia and Ukraine

Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 2021, t. 69, nr 1, s. 95-116.

Współautorstwo: Belavusaǔ, Uladzìslaǔ; Mälksoo, Maria

While memory laws emerged in the Western European context almost three decades ago, there has been a recent proliferation of memory laws in Central and Eastern Europe in the 2010s. This emerging body of law, contrary to its origins, appears to fortify a state-sanctioned victimhood and seeks to establish a preferable narrative of history in public memory through legal means. The outlook on WWII history and the dominance of Soviet communism is a central point of contestation as CEE states construct opposing historical narratives that implicate one another in the ongoing war for remembrance. In our contribution, we focus on three CEE states as country studies, covering memory laws in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, as well as analyzing their memory legislation in the context of memory wars. Our analysis subsequently highlights how ‘memory wars’ unfold as proxy wars for contemporary state identities. A quest for mnemonical security, states securitize the governance of memory which is hence excluded from public discourse and subjugated to restrictive permissible discourses and remembrance practices. These methods of mnemonic governance via militant memory laws thereby erode the foundational elements of liberal democracy, weaken constitutional orders as well as add fuel to nationalist tendencies, all of which have implications for democratic backsliding. Furthermore, our contribution demonstrates that memory laws in all three countries have been adopted as swords and shields amidst the mutual memory wars: (1) between Poland and Ukraine, on the one side, against Russia, on the other side, as well as (2) Poland and Ukraine between themselves, and (3) Russia and Ukraine between themselves. These diametrically opposed historical narratives, institutionalized through memory laws, thus have significant implications and can potentially deepen conflicts, historical feuds, and ethnic and national tensions.

10.1628/joer-2021-0005 ☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Cytowania

The Judgment That Wasn’t : (But Which Nearly Brought Poland to a Standstill) : ‘Judgment’ of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 22 October 2020, K1/20

European Constitutional Law Review 2021, t. 17, nr 1, s. 130-153.

Współautorstwo: Sadurski, Wojciech

October of 2020 was just another month of rising concerns over the ever worsening Covid-19 statistics in Poland. Otherwise the times were unremarkable: Poland’s ruling powers ploughed on with demolishing the rule of law and persecuting courageous judges; they reshuffled their cabinet to appoint an openly homophobic minister; and continued to inundate Polish citizens with propaganda spewing from government-controlled television channels. But on 22 October 2020, something happened that made political observers, civic activists, and the people on the streets in Poland rub their eyes in disbelief. The Constitutional Tribunal (hereafter: the Tribunal), firmly controlled by the Law and Justice party and chaired by Mrs Julia Przyłębska, who was unlawfully appointed to the position of the President of the Tribunal (though properly elected, earlier, as a judge of the Tribunal), as part of a panel partly comprised of persons not legally appointed judges of the Tribunal, announced that provisions of the law allowing pregnancies to be terminated when there is a high probability of a severe or irreversible foetal impairment or when the foetus is diagnosed with an incurable and life-threatening disease – are unconstitutional. Hours later, the streets of cities and towns, large and small, all over Poland, teemed with tens of thousands and later hundreds of thousands of protesters loudly proclaiming their opposition – frequently using expletives so far unheard of in public spaces – to this assault on fundamental human rights paraded as a legitimate judicial act as part of the Tribunal’s constitutional review of legislation. The protest, initially aimed at the Tribunal’s pronouncement, quickly turned into a global protest against the Law and Justice party’s rule over Poland in general, at first triggering incredulity in government circles and then prompting a series of nervous reactions from them.

10.1017/S1574019621000067

LINK BEZPOŚREDNI ☞ ZOBACZ W ePBP

Cytowania