Publications and works in progress (selected)

In Preparation
Tourkochoriti I. Comparative Constitutionalism.; In Preparation.
Adrian M, Tourkochoriti I ed. Headscarves and the Law: Global Perspectives.; In Preparation.
Danchin P, Graber M, Tourkochoriti I ed. The Oxford Handbook on Antidiscrimination Law and Religion.; In Preparation.
Should the Law Regulate Historical Memory?. In Preparation.
Employment Discrimination Law in the U.S.A. and the E.U.: A Comparative Analysis. In Preparation.
Human Dignity: a Legal Value?. In Preparation.
Forthcoming
Sellers M, Tourkochoriti I ed. Research Handbook on the Comparative Enforcement of International Law. Edward Elgar; Forthcoming.
Tourkochoriti I. “Comparative law and philosophy of history: the case of free speech in American and French legal thought”. In: Sellers M, Tourkochoriti I Comparative legal history: The Value, Purposes and Methods of Historical Comparison. Cambridge University Press ; Forthcoming.
Tourkochoriti I, Sellers M ed. Comparative Legal History: The Value, Purposes and Methods of Historical Comparison. Cambridge University Press; Forthcoming.
Co-editor. The Oxford Handbook on Hate Speech.; Forthcoming.
McGrogan D, Sellers M, Tourkochoriti I ed. Critiquing Human Rights. Edward Elgar; Forthcoming.
2023
Tourkochoriti I. The Digital Services Act and the EU as the Global Regulator of the Internet. Chicago Journal of International Law. 2023;24 (1) :129-147. Publisher's VersionAbstract
This Essay discusses the Digital Services Act (DSA), the new regulation enacted by the EU to combat hate speech and misinformation online, focusing on the major challenges its application will entail. However sophisticated the DSA might be, major technological challenges to detecting hate speech and misinformation online necessitate further research in implementing the DSA. This Essay also discusses potential conflicts with U.S. law that may arise in the application of the DSA. The gap in regulating the platforms in the U.S. has meant that the platforms adapt to the most stringent standards of regulation existing elsewhere. In 2016, the EU agreed with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube on a code of conduct countering hate speech online. As part of this code, the platforms agreed to rules or Community Guidelines and to practice content moderation in conformity with them. The DSA builds on the content moderation system by enhancing the internal complaint-handling systems the platforms maintain. In the meantime, some states in the U.S., namely Texas and Florida, enacted legislation prohibiting the platforms from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Two federal courts of appeals that have examined the constitutionality of these statutes under the First Amendment are split in their rulings. This Essay discusses the implications for the platforms’ content moderation practices depending on which ruling will be upheld.
Tourkochoriti I. Religious Rights. In: Katherine Valke, Jaakko Husa JS The Elgar Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law. Edward Elgar ; 2023.
Tourkochoriti I. The Constitutional Politics of Religion. In: Tushnet M, Kochenov D Research Handbook on the Politics of Constitutional Law. Vol. 2023. Edward Elgar ; 2023. SSRN
Tourkochoriti I. Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Comparative Law. 2023;2023 (71). Publisher's VersionAbstract
This Article discusses critically and from a comparative perspective the idea of neutrality mentioned in the two recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on headscarves in the workplace. The decisions indicate a trend common in many European states that shows little willingness to accommodate for the manifestation of religion in the public sphere. This Article discusses the criteria posed in the decisions on the permissibility of limiting the wearing of headscarves in the workplace and compares them to those used by courts and equality commissions in the United States. It makes a normative argument on what the CJEU should have said in its decisions in order to provide more concrete guidance to national courts. The concept of neutrality, as understood in certain CJEU and European Court of Human Rights cases actually discriminates against some religious groups. It is impossible to be neutral in these issues because neutrality is culturally defined and has a disparate impact in its application upon minority religious groups. This is due to the dominant understanding of neutrality towards religion or secularism in Europe. This understanding should change due to the incoming waves of immigrants that should be integrated. For a number of social and historical reasons there is in the United States greater tolerance for religious expression in the workplace and in the public sphere more generally. The U.S. approach accommodates a spectrum of religious interests and operates to integrate minority religious groups rather than to exclude them. Understanding the philosophical ideas which underlie the differences in the law can inspire a normative reflection on the proper criteria to balance the employee’s freedom of religion and the employers’ rights to define their business. The American approach on headscarves in the workplace is preferable to the European on a deontological and a consequentialist basis as it provides a better accommodation of the relevant interests. It is furthering inclusion in the labor market through respect of differences that allows human flourishing.
2022
Bills of Rights. In: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. Vol. 2022. Oxford University Press ; 2022. Publisher's Version
Freedom Of Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry Into The Revolutionary Roots Of American And French Legal Thought. Cambridge University Press; 2022. Publisher's Version
2021
Tourkochoriti I. Privacy and Speech. In: The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech. Oxford University Press ; 2021.
2020
Tourkochoriti I. “Constitutional Amendment, Unamendability and the Democratic Paradox". American Journal of Comparative Law. 2020;2020 (4) :929-933. Publisher's Version
Human Dignity, Authority and Justice. Jurisprudence. 2020;11 (2).

Pages