Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T16:50:49.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Basic Law at 60 – Equality and Difference: A Proposal for the Guest List to the Birthday Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Susanne Baer

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This birthday gives rise to many considerations. Some reflect upon achievements – the German constitution, named “Basic Law”, has proven to work although many did not believe in it when it was framed. Others emphasize desiderata. Sabine Berghahn commented at the 50th birthday that it has developed “far too slowly and [some] has even gone completely wrong.” Jutta Limbach, former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, observed that constitutional history was “anything but regal, but very difficult and full of obstacles.” Former Chancellor Willy Brandt famously called the constitution “a snail on thin ice.” So what is missing when we analyze the Basic Law, and what should be finally added - as spirit, in interpretation, in clarifying words? I will try to point to achievements and show what might still be lacking. This is what studies in constitutionalism always do. To do justice to the occasion, I will also think about who we should invite to celebrate this birthday. More precisely, if we are to celebrate the 60th birthday of Article 3 of the Basic Law, which is the equality guarantee, and which has been amended since its birthday, I will encourage you to think about who should come to this party.

Type
Special Issue: The Basic Law at 60
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 1: Special issue - The Basic Law at 60 , 01 January 2010 , pp. 67 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Sabine Berghahn, 50 Jahre Gleichberechtigungsgebot, in Eine lernende Demokratie 315 (Max Kaase and Günther Schmidt eds., 1999).Google Scholar

2 Id. at 319.Google Scholar

3 This paraphrases a feminist slogan that refers to the penis as a small difference with large consequences.Google Scholar

4 This has been called the dilemma of difference, or the feminist dilemma, by U.S. scholars Drucilla Cornell, and Martha Minow. See Susanne Baer, Dilemmata im Recht und Gleichheit als Hierarchisierungsverbot - Der Abschied von Thelma und Louise, 28 Kriminologisches Journal 242–260 (1996).Google Scholar

5 Weber did not vote oin favour of the Basic Law because it did not guarantee for a transparent budget of political parties and did not allow for plebiscites on th efederal level; she also later fought against the rebuilding of the Germany Armed Forces.Google Scholar

6 These committees were later turned into members of the Demokratische Frauenbund in the East, and the Deutsche Frauenring in the West.Google Scholar

7 Usually, the critical mass is set at around 20 %. Change occurs when the number of newcomers is large enough to prevent a single stigma, and forces the establishment to differentiate between individuals.Google Scholar

8 In the reporting on implementation of CEDAW, Germany has received positive comments only regarding political representation, and fares rather badly regarding equal pay, segregation of the work force etc.Google Scholar

9 On the history see Ines Reich-Hilweg, Gleicher Lohn für gleiche Arbeit, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 5/2009, at 88.Google Scholar

10 After 1945, the taboo around sexuality as well as the unwillingness to discuss the gendered nature of violence, there was no public recognition neither of mass prostitution of German women in front of Allied army housing, or of the mass rapes of women right after the war ended officially.Google Scholar

11 Interview, Der Tagesspiegel, May 17, 2009, at A1.Google Scholar

12 Hildegard Hamm-Brücher, Interview, Der Tagesspiegel, May 17, 2009, at A1.Google Scholar

13 Wuermeling, after the war, lead Fides Romana, a Catholic laymen's organisation. His ideas about the family have been published in his book. See Franz-Josef Wuermeling, Familie - Gabe und Aufgabe (1963).Google Scholar

14 See Susanne Baer, Equality: The Jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, 5 Columbia Journal of European Law 249–279 (1999).Google Scholar

15 See Carmen Sitter, Die Rolle der vier Frauen im Parlamentarischen Rat (1995) (providing more information on the positions of all four women framers).Google Scholar

16 Catharine A. MacKinnon, Reflections on Sex Equality under Law, 100 Yale L.J. 1281 (1990–1991).Google Scholar

17 Parliamentary proposal of the Green Party „Quote für Aufsichtsratsgremien börsennotierter Unternehmen einführen”, Bundestags-Drucksache. 16/5279 v. 9.5.2007; and Drucksache 16/12108 v.4.3.2009; with a hearing of the Committee of Legal Matters, 7. Mai 2008, and the protocol at http://www.bundestag.de/ausschuesse/a06/anhoerungen/archiv/35_quote/05_wortprotokoll.pdf.Google Scholar

18 Frauenrechte im Grundgesetz des geeinten Deutschland 159 (Jutta Limbach and Marion Eckertz-Höfer eds., 1993).Google Scholar

19 Id., at 98 et seq.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 86 (quoting of Justice Ernst Benda).Google Scholar

21 BVerfGE 6, 389.Google Scholar

22 Id. at para. 109 and 121.Google Scholar

23 BVerfG, 2 BvR 2462/07 from Dec. 15, 2008, at para. 11, available at http://www.bverfg.de/en/decisions/rk20081215_2bvr246207.html.Google Scholar

24 See, e.g., BVerfG, 1 BvR 2793/04 from Dec. 19, 2007, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20071219_1bvr279304.html (racist slogans at a rally); BVerfG, 2 BvR 486/05 from March 8, 2006, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060308_2bvr048605.html (military judgments violate Art. 3 sec 3 BL, with emphasis on dignity).Google Scholar

25 BVerfG, 1 BvR 518/02 from April 4, 2006, at para. 111, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20060404_1bvr051802.html.Google Scholar

26 BVerfGE 39, 169 (185) (overruled by BVerfGE 74, 163 (179)).Google Scholar

27 The list is long, and starts with BVerfGE 3, 225 and BVerfGE 5, 9.Google Scholar

28 BVerfGE 52, 376.Google Scholar

29 BVerfGE 88, 203, heading 3.Google Scholar

30 Susanne Baer, A Different Approach to Jurisprudence? Feminisms in German Legal Science, Legal Cultures, and the Ambivalence of Law, 3 2 Cardozo Women's Law Journal 251–285 (1996).Google Scholar

31 Udo di Fabio, Die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau, 122 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 404, 406 (1997).Google Scholar

32 Supra note 15, at 102 (statement by Schmitt Glaeser).Google Scholar

33 Ute Gerhard, Gleichheit ohne Angleichung. Frauen im Recht (1990).Google Scholar

34 Andrea Maihofer, Geschlecht als Existenzweise. Macht, Moral, Recht und Geschlechterdifferenz (1995).Google Scholar

35 Vera Slupik, Die Entscheidung des Grundgesetzes für die Parität im Geschlechterverhältnis (1998).Google Scholar

36 Ute Sacksofsky, Das Grundrecht auf Gleichberechtigung. Eine rechtsdogmatische Untersuchung zu Artikel 3 Absatz 2 des Grundgesetzes (2nd ed. 1996).Google Scholar

37 Antje Späth, Vielfältige Forderungen nach Gleichberechtigung und „nur” ein Ergebnis: Artikel 3 Absatz 2 GG, in Frauen in der Geschichte 122–167 (Anna-Elisabeth Freier and Annette Kuhn eds., 1994).Google Scholar