The law and practices of ritual male circumcision: time for review

Recently, a German court found that ritual male circumcision (RMC) on a minor too young to consent, violated the physical integrity of the child and could not be justified on religious grounds. The judgment led to a world-wide revival of the discussion on the desirability of RMC. This article hopes to make a contribution to that discussion and offers a short introduction to RCM, touching on why it is practiced. The paper then discusses the legal and practical situation in England where circumcision is completely unregulated, the Netherlands where circumcision is well-regulated, but where little attention is paid to the independent rights of children, and Germany where the desirability of circumcision per se has been called into question. After a discussion of domestic practices, the paper looks at international law relating to RMC, in particular the law of the Council of Europe and the United Nations. It shows that the international organizations have generally been supportive of RMC, when practiced under hygienic circumstances. The discussion subsequently turns to the literature, which has long argued that RMC presents problems, both medically and in terms of children’s rights. Bringing the different voices together, the paper finally draws a conclusion on the desirability of continued RMC from a viewpoint of the interests of the child. The conclusion is that, ultimately, we should strive for the abolition of RMC on non-consenting minors, although many states may need a transition period during which the practice should be strictly regulated.

This chapter considers the law in relation to ritual male circumcision on minors who have not yet reached decision-making capacity. It provides an overview of jurisdictions where the practice is unregulated (England), regulated and sometimes facilitated (The Netherlands) and questioned per se (Germany), and subsequently considers relevant international law. The international framework appears to favour regulation and medicalisation, however, whilst this approach is able to address physical pain, the chapter argues that regulation provides no answer to concerns related to psychological well-being and autonomy.