Brett G. Scharffs on the Evolution of His Thinking About Refah Partisi v. Turkey

In Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights sided with the Turkish Constitutional Court, which had ordered the dissolution of the party based on its being a threat to secular constitutional order. Brett G. Scharffs (International Center for Law and Religion Studies) explains why and how his and his students’ opinions about the Refah Partisi case have changed over the years and why he no longer considers the Court’s decision to be an overreaction.

(more…)

Continue Reading Brett G. Scharffs on the Evolution of His Thinking About Refah Partisi v. Turkey

Armenia’s State-Church Relations: Not Much Room for Optimism

Isabella Sargsyan is an expert on freedom of religion or belief based in Yerevan, Armenia, and a past member of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on FoRB (2016–18, 2023–25). 

On 5 January 2026 Armenia’s Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, formally launched what he described as a reform of the Armenian Apostolic Church (hereinafter the Church or Armenian Church, interchangeably), reading a statement at his residence in the presence of 10 senior clergy who had called for the resignation of Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II, the Church’s supreme head. The document—which Pashinyan signed in his capacity of Prime Minister—outlined a roadmap for the implementation of reforms, including the removal of the current Catholicos and the formation of a Coordinating Council comprised of Pashinyan and the above-mentioned clerics. This roadmap purportedly addresses perceived failures of Church leadership and condemns the “uncanonical practice of involving the Church in politics and using it to serve various agendas and interests.”

(more…)

Continue Reading Armenia’s State-Church Relations: Not Much Room for Optimism

Restricting Religious Names: Three Recent Cases

Dmytro Vovk is a visiting associate professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

The name of a religious group is usually considered an aspect of its autonomy. The name can be based on religious history and theology and serve as the group’s self-representation to its members, the public, and the state. Other posts in this blog series discuss how, from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), a religiously neutral state can interfere in naming for non-religious reasons, such as protection of intellectual rights, prohibition of morally inappropriate or pejorative names, or prior use of the names by other religious organizations. These restrictions apply similarly to religious organizations and to NGOs, political parties, and even business corporations alike.

(more…)

Continue Reading Restricting Religious Names: Three Recent Cases