著者

伊藤 知義

出版者

中央ロー・ジャーナル編集委員会

雑誌

中央ロー・ジャーナル = Chuo Law Journal (ISSN:13496239)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.4, pp.47-78, 2022-03-31

---

The paper analyzes three recent "Anti LGBT Laws" in Hungary. lt focuses on their contents and the domestic reaction to harsh critiques by the EU headquarters in Brussels. Tue first statute makes it impossible for transgender or intersex people to legally change genders. The second item is the ninth amendment to the Constitution. lt says, "The mother is a woman, the father a man," thus effectively banning same-sex couples from adopting children. lt further declares that the state protects identification according to a child' s gender at birth. The third law imposes stricter actions against pedophile offenders and amends eleven child protection laws. Tue additions prohibit adults from facilitating access to pornography by people under the age of 18. They also prohibit adults from promoting or displaying (visualizing) deviations from the identity of the sex of birth, gender-change, and homosexuality to those under 18. The European Commission has condemned the laws as "anti-LGBT or homophobic" impairments of the fundamental human rights of LGBT people. The Hungarian government on the other hand describes them as "anti-pedophilia" or "child protection statutes that have no relation to the rights of adult LGBT people. Liberal segments of Hungarian society have echoed the Commission's criticisms. Conservatives have responded by branding Brussels as an arrogant colonialist infringing Hungarian sovereignty. They make the following arguments: The acts conform with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; LGBT people are not discriminated against in present-day Hungary; the essence of the laws is curbing pedophiliac actions; promotion of homosexuality is harming children; LGBT activists are not protecting minorities but rather attacking the majority. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his allies claim that Western Europe has abandoned real "European Values," which they say are based on Christianity and family. They contend that only Central and Eastern Europe maintain those values now. These two elements, they insist are among the basic values in the Hungarian Constitution of 2011, which they were responsible for creating.

著者

伊藤 知義

出版者

北海道大学法学部

雑誌

北大法学論集 (ISSN:03855953)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, no.4, pp.p873-957, 1982

著者

伊藤 知義

出版者

中央ロー・ジャーナル編集委員会

雑誌

中央ロー・ジャーナル (ISSN:13496239)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, no.1, pp.3-27, 2020-06-30

---

Croatia enacted a law on same-sex life partnership in 2014. It affords same-sex couples almost the same rights as those of married or extramarital heterosexual couples with the exception of the right of adoption. Croatia was part of the former Yugoslavia for about seven decades. Among the ex-constituent members, Slovenia and Croatia recognize same sex partnerships. Serbia,Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and (Northern) Macedonia do not. All of the six countries reject same sex marriage. This paper discusses the lawmaking process in Croatia and what makes the difference between these two groups. It gives particular attention to why Serbia and Croatia, which belonged to one state for such a long time, have take different paths. Four factors are possible causes: history, religion, international circumstances, and domestic politics. Pre-modern era Croatia belonged to the central European legal tradition as part of Hungary or Austria, that is—the Hapsburg monarchy. Serbia, on the other hand, was part of the Ottoman Empire. Those different experiences affected their reception of modern law. Croatia always identified with the Hapsburg monarchy—a part of the West. Serbia began efforts to catch up with the West in the beginning of the 19th century, when the Ottoman Empire retreated. The two nations are also different religiously. Croatians believe in the Catholic Church. Serbians are aligned with the Orthodox Church. Modernism arose out of Protestantism—a variation of Catholicism, the origin of which was the Western Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church, by contrast, traced its roots to the Byzantine Empire. So, it remained reluctant to embrance modernism. For Croatians, modernism is theirs. For Serbians, it is not. Since the collapse of Socialism, Serbia has been embroiled in conflict. It waged civil wars against Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Serbia’s actions were labeled “ethnic cleansing,” and the country faced economic sanctions by the West and bombing by NATO. Serbian people felt they had been excluded from Europe, though the country had continuously sought EU membership. It was and still is difficult for them to become completely westernized. Croatia, however, had already been accepted by the West, to which it returned. It enjoyed peacetime after the end of the civil war and had enough time and space to think about issues such as protection of LGBT human rights, as did, Hungary and Austria. These factors explain to some extent the divergent Croatian and Serbian attitudes toward legal recognition of same-sex partnerships.

著者

伊藤 知義

出版者

中央ロー・ジャーナル編集委員会

雑誌

中央ロー・ジャーナル (ISSN:13496239)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.15, no.4, pp.3-20, 2019-03-31

---

According to present Serbian law, a marriage is made between woman and man. Neither same-sex marriages nor legalized same-sex couples (civil unions or registered partnerships) are recognized. The drafting of the new Civil Code, which has taken more than ten years. does not propose legalizing them either. Among the countries that constituted the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia have recognized same-sex couples. Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina have not. The countries enjoyed wide autonomy in making family law during the existence of the former Yugoslavia, and they maintained different family laws at that time too. Neighboring ex-socialist countries also have different stances. Hungary and Czech accept same-sex couples; Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia do not. What causes the difference in approaches? One possibility is that the more principles of modern society a country accepts, the more tolerance it has toward sexual minorities. For example, western countries as France, Germany, and England—located in the very center of modern law and society—legally recognize both same-sex couples and same-sex marriages. Let us divide European countries into three groups: western, central, and eastern. The western group recognizes same-sex marriage; the central one accepts same-sex couples but does not recognize same-sex marriage; the eastern group recognizes neither. This classification, while useful, is not perfect. For example, Italy—which is located in the western group geographically, historically, and culturally—recognizes only same-sex couples, not same-sex marriage. Poland, which would seem to belong to the central group, does not accept either. Modern elements, therefore, are not sufficient to clarify the situation. Religion is another factor. The deviation of Italy and Poland can be understood in this perspective. The power of the Catholic Church is very strong there. Religion exercises the biggest influence in the eastern group and the smallest in western one. Modern law has the biggest effect in the west, the smallest in the east. Though this is a rough sketch, it is helpful in understanding the strong homophobia in Russia, which is located very far from the birthplace of modern law and in which the impact of the Orthodox Church has been enormous since the collapse of communism. Like Russia, Serbia belongs to the eastern group. Its geographic and historical situation, however, is different. Serbia enacted a civil code as early as in 1844, and it remained in force till 1945, more than hundred years. The Code was under a decisive effect of ABGB and Code Civil, completely distinct from the Russian “Свод Законов Российской Империи” of 1832, which, according to its drafter Сперанский, was only slightly influenced by Roman law. This means that Serbia has a long history of accepting modern civil law. It could be a reason to expect Serbia to have a plan to legalize same-sex couples in the near future. Other reasons are the country’s desire to join the EU as soon as possible and pressure—both external and internal—to follow precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. That court has clearly declared that refusing to legalize same-sex relationships violates the European Convention on Human Rights. These circumstances will inevitably lead Serbia to change its position from the eastern to the central group.

著者

伊藤 知義

出版者

北海道大学法学部

雑誌

北大法学論集 (ISSN:03855953)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, no.5-6, pp.709-728, 1989-10-31