How do legal strategies at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) vary among activists in highly asymmetrical social positions? Social scientists have demonstrated that legal mobilization raises the pressure on states to provide broader minority accommodation. While this may be true, such outcome-oriented studies overlook the fact that judicial mobilization is itself deeply imbued with inequalities and divergent interests among diverse activists. We lack comparative studies to examine how such differences play out in litigation. Drawing on a qualitative in-depth study among Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Evangelical, and secular advocacy groups involved in religious freedom disputes at the ECtHR, this article argues that claims making often is a balancing act between legal power relations and extra-legal commitments, which leads to variation in activists’ leverage to challenge legal marginalization. First, hostile legal environments discourage more easily activists with weaker transnational connections who are in vulnerable domestic positions. Second, while the most marginalized readily seek to fit identity narratives into dominant legal frames of religion, more powerful actors can target the core of legal principles and power distribution within the legal field as such. Even when unsuccessful in judicial outcomes, they might affect broader political and legal debates.

中文翻译：

---

在欧洲人权法院主张宗教自由：社会法律领域对法律动员的影响

欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 的法律策略在社会地位高度不对称的活动家之间有何不同？社会科学家已经证明，法律动员增加了各州提供更广泛少数族裔住宿的压力。虽然这可能是真的，但这种以结果为导向的研究忽视了这样一个事实，即司法动员本身就深深地充满了不同活动家之间的不平等和利益分歧。我们缺乏比较研究来检验这些差异如何在诉讼中发挥作用。本文通过对涉及欧洲人权法院宗教自由争议的锡克教、穆斯林、天主教、福音派和世俗倡导团体进行定性深入研究，认为提出主张通常是法律权力关系和法律外承诺之间的平衡行为, 这导致活动家挑战法律边缘化的影响力有所不同。首先，敌对的法律环境更容易阻碍跨国联系较弱、处于弱势国内地位的活动家。其次，虽然最边缘化的人很容易将身份叙述融入主流的宗教法律框架，但更强大的行为者可以将法律原则的核心和法律领域内的权力分配作为目标。即使司法结果不成功，它们也可能影响更广泛的政治和法律辩论。虽然最边缘化的人很容易将身份叙述融入主要的宗教法律框架，但更强大的行为者可以针对法律原则的核心和法律领域内的权力分配本身。即使司法结果不成功，它们也可能影响更广泛的政治和法律辩论。虽然最边缘化的人很容易将身份叙述融入主要的宗教法律框架，但更强大的行为者可以针对法律原则的核心和法律领域内的权力分配本身。即使司法结果不成功，它们也可能影响更广泛的政治和法律辩论。