Judges Seeing Injustice: Evans v United Kingdom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v19i1.270Keywords:
Evans v the United Kingdom, care ethics, relational autonomy, gender, legal ethicsAbstract
Evans v The United Kingdom case is good example of the fact that the abstract rules cannot sometimes provide substantial justice. In this regard, the interpretation of the judges is of great importance. This article discusses the role of judges to see the injustice of a case by using Evans v the United Kingdom decision. Discussions based on the theory of care ethics, relational autonomy and Gulriz Uygur’s approach “to see injustice”.
References
BBC News (10.4.2007). Woman Loses Final Embryo Appeal. Internet adresi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6530295.stm. Erişim tarihi: 20.1.2017.
Ben-Naftali O. & Canor I. (2008). Evans v. The United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights. American Journal Int'l Law, 102: 128-134.
European Court of Human Rights (10.4.2007). The case of Evans v. the United Kingdom. Internet adresi: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"dmdocnumber":["815166"],"itemid":["001-80046"]}. Erişim tarihi: 25.5.2017.
Evans v Birleşik Krallık davası (10 Nisan 2007, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Başvuru No: 6339/05).
Ford M. (2008). Evans v United Kingdom: What Implications for the Jurisprudence of Pregnancy? Human Rights Law Review, 8: 171-184.
Grover S. (2007). Gender Bias in Judicial Decisions Concerning IVF and Embryo Implantation: Evans v The United Kingdom (Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights) As a Case in Point. Original Law Review, 86: 86-98.
Herring J. (2009). Relational Autonomy and Rape. İçinde, Day-Sclater S., Ebtehaj F., Jackson E. & Richards M. (Eds.), Regulating Autonomy, Sex, Reproduction and Family. Portland: Hart Publishing: 53-72.
Herring J. (2013). Caring and the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Herring J. (2014). Relational Autonomy and Family Law. London: Springer.
Herring J. & Chau P-L. (2014). Interconnected, Inhabited and Insecure: Why Bodies Should Not Be Property. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40: 39-43.
Lind C. (2006). Evans v United Kingdom –Judgements of Solomon: Power, Gender and Procreation. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 8: 576-592.
MacKinnon C.A. (2013). Feminist Bir Devlet Kuramına Doğru (Çev. Türkan Yöney & Sabir Yücesoy). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Medline Plus (4.5.2017). In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Internet adresi: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007279.htm. Erişim tarihi: 21.1.2017.
Morris C. (2007). Evans v United Kingdom: Paradigms of Parenting. The Modern Law Review, 70: 992-1002.
O’Dowd O. (2012). Care and Abstract Principles. Hypatia, 27: 407-422.
Skubic V.Z. (2008). The Issue of Consent in Bio-Medically Assisted Reproduction Procedures (The Case of ‘Evans v. The United Kingdom’). Zbornik PFS, 58: 1141-1158
Uygur G. (2013). Hukukta Adaletsizliği Görmek. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
Uygur G. (2015). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Adalet: Hukuk Adaletsizdir. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 4: 121-132.
Zucca L. (2007). Evans v United Kingdom: Frozen Embryos and Conflicting Rights. The Edinburgh Law Review, 11: 446-449.
Ben-Naftali O. & Canor I. (2008). Evans v. The United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights. American Journal Int'l Law, 102: 128-134.
European Court of Human Rights (10.4.2007). The case of Evans v. the United Kingdom. Internet adresi: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"dmdocnumber":["815166"],"itemid":["001-80046"]}. Erişim tarihi: 25.5.2017.
Evans v Birleşik Krallık davası (10 Nisan 2007, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Başvuru No: 6339/05).
Ford M. (2008). Evans v United Kingdom: What Implications for the Jurisprudence of Pregnancy? Human Rights Law Review, 8: 171-184.
Grover S. (2007). Gender Bias in Judicial Decisions Concerning IVF and Embryo Implantation: Evans v The United Kingdom (Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights) As a Case in Point. Original Law Review, 86: 86-98.
Herring J. (2009). Relational Autonomy and Rape. İçinde, Day-Sclater S., Ebtehaj F., Jackson E. & Richards M. (Eds.), Regulating Autonomy, Sex, Reproduction and Family. Portland: Hart Publishing: 53-72.
Herring J. (2013). Caring and the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Herring J. (2014). Relational Autonomy and Family Law. London: Springer.
Herring J. & Chau P-L. (2014). Interconnected, Inhabited and Insecure: Why Bodies Should Not Be Property. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40: 39-43.
Lind C. (2006). Evans v United Kingdom –Judgements of Solomon: Power, Gender and Procreation. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 8: 576-592.
MacKinnon C.A. (2013). Feminist Bir Devlet Kuramına Doğru (Çev. Türkan Yöney & Sabir Yücesoy). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Medline Plus (4.5.2017). In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Internet adresi: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007279.htm. Erişim tarihi: 21.1.2017.
Morris C. (2007). Evans v United Kingdom: Paradigms of Parenting. The Modern Law Review, 70: 992-1002.
O’Dowd O. (2012). Care and Abstract Principles. Hypatia, 27: 407-422.
Skubic V.Z. (2008). The Issue of Consent in Bio-Medically Assisted Reproduction Procedures (The Case of ‘Evans v. The United Kingdom’). Zbornik PFS, 58: 1141-1158
Uygur G. (2013). Hukukta Adaletsizliği Görmek. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
Uygur G. (2015). Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Adalet: Hukuk Adaletsizdir. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 4: 121-132.
Zucca L. (2007). Evans v United Kingdom: Frozen Embryos and Conflicting Rights. The Edinburgh Law Review, 11: 446-449.
Downloads
Published
2017-05-10
How to Cite
Özdemir, N. (2017). Judges Seeing Injustice: Evans v United Kingdom. Kadın/Woman 2000, Journal for Women’s Studies, 19(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v19i1.270
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [6 months] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
