scholarly journals Reconciliation between the Islamic Human Rights and International Law: Prospects and Complications

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 609
Author(s):  
Siamak Karamzadeh ◽  
Massoud Alizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Historical Aspect ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between International Human Rights and Islamic Law has been always an arguable debate at the international level. This issue can be considered by jurists in two aspects. First, from National Law perspective, especially in the countries in which the law, to some extent is affected by Islamic rules. Second, by view of International Law to see that to what extent, there would be compatibility or likely contradiction between human rights norms and Islamic Law.Considering the historical aspect of the issue, this article is suggesting that although from the outset, International Law tried to separate religion from policy, but this historical fact would not prevent theoretical conciliation between religion and Human Rights rules. The review of the content of International Human Rights Law reveals that the rules in the systems in most part are compatible. However, in some cases the incompatibility between these two group pf rules is observed. The existence of different basis under Islamic Law and International Law makes the least difference unavoidable. The constant dialogue between Islamic scholars and publicists can decrease this difference in future.

Title to Territory and JurisdictionThree and a Half Models

2020 ◽  
pp. 159-181
Author(s):  
Lea Raible
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Power ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The very term ‘extraterritoriality’ implies that territory is significant. So far, however, my argument focuses on jurisdiction rather than territory. This chapter adds clarifications in this area. It examines the relationship of jurisdiction in international human rights law, whether understood as political power or not, and title to territory in international law. To this end, I start by looking at what international law has to say about jurisdiction as understood in international human rights law, and territory, respectively. The conclusion of the survey is that the two concepts serve different normative purposes, are underpinned by different values, and that they are thus not the same. Accordingly, an account of their relationship should be approached with conceptual care.

scholarly journals International Constitutional Law and Judicial Review of Domestic Human Rights Legislation

ICL Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-118
Author(s):  
Laura-Stella Enonchong
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Domestic Sphere ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms

Abstract This article discusses the idea of international human rights law as ‘constitutional law’. It applies the French concept of Le contrôle de conventionnalité des lois, to demonstrate the constitutional potentials of international human rights law in the domestic sphere. In most monist constitutional systems based on the French civilian model, international law takes precedence over acts of parliament and other domestic legislation. Due in part to that hierarchy, conventionnalité permits the courts to review domestic law for compatibility with international law. From that perspective, international human rights norms can be said to have assumed a ‘para-constitutional’ function. Using two case studies from francophone Africa, this article argues that conventionnalité has the potential to play a significant role in the domestic implementation of international human rights and ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive domestic human rights regime.

Part 2 Interrelations between Constitutionalism and Sharī’ah: Antagonism or Complementarity?, 2.1 Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries: A Survey from the Perspective of International Law

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfrum Rüdiger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International Law ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the influence of international law and Islamic law on the constitutions of Islamic states. It discusses the historical development of the relationship between Islamic law and international law; reference to human rights and international law in the constitutions of Islamic states (Africa, Middle East, and Asia); and the impact of the Sharīʻah on the ratification of international human rights treaties.

scholarly journals Navigating Human Rights in a ‘Post-Human Rights’ Era

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-194
Author(s):  
Rhona Smith ◽  
Sean Molloy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract International human rights law and mechanisms tasked with promoting state compliance with it are being increasingly challenged. Opposition is originating from, amongst others, countries that have historically supported the global human rights project. These new trends and sites of contestation bolster opposition from other countries and regions that have consistently diverged from international human rights norms. Examining the relationship between the United Nations human rights system and states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in this broader context of opposition to human rights, this article argues that existing theories on why states do, or ought to, comply with international human rights law are often inadequate to either explain or inspire state adherence to human rights norms. What is required, this article will argue, is not another theory but rather more targeted and incremental efforts to address the gap between rhetoric and compliance.

Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms and Universal Jurisdiction

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Slye
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Domestic Law

Domestic courts play an important role in the adjudication of international law, including international human rights law. The relationship between international and domestic law has often been characterized as a continuum between monism and dualism. In a monist system, international law is automatically a part of domestic law, and a conflict between the two is resolved in favor of international law. In a dualist system, domestic law is superior to international law within the domestic legal system, while international law is superior to domestic law within the international legal system. A conflict between domestic law and international law is thus not always resolved in the same way in both systems. In addition, one of the areas with the most active use of international law in a domestic legal system is under a theory of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction most often involves both the incorporation of international law into a domestic legal system and the assertion outward (extraterritorially) of domestic judicial system. Universal jurisdiction arose initially in the context of criminal prosecutions, but is also found to some extent in civil litigation, particularly in the United States. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a state may assert jurisdiction over an offender regardless of the nationality of the offender or victim, the place of commission of the wrongful act, or any other link to the state asserting jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Human rights implications of the NonRefoulement & Development

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Imrul Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

States are obliged for protection of refugees under international law on account of their membership of United Nations and signature or accession to International Refugee Instruments as well as International Human Rights Instruments. The legal basis for this international protection may either be customary international law or conventional international law. The basic customary international laws applicable to them are those pertinent fundamental human rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights. Hence, it is submitted that all states should protect the fundamental human rights of refugees under customary international law. Principle of non-refoulement is one of them. The refugee regime has generated a serious body of law that elaborates basic human rights norms and has important implications in and beyond the refugee context. There are a number of universal, regional and domestic human rights instruments and mechanisms which can be employed to enhance the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This research aims at finding out the role of principle of non-refoulement in protecting refugees and asylum seekers under international human rights law.

17 International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassòli Marco
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHRL, unlike IHL, was not founded specifically to protect people affected by armed conflicts, both branches of international law apply simultaneously during such conflicts. This raises the question of how they interrelate and also how possible contradictions between them can be resolved. Today, genuine armed conflicts are mainly not of an international character. In such situations, the relationship between IHL and IHRL is particularly controversial and difficult to determine. Nevertheless, both IHL and IHRL lead, in most cases, to the same results. In the few instances where results differ, states could do a lot to harmonize their obligations under both branches, by resorting to derogations permitted under IHRL, one of the means offered by international law to harmonize their IHRL obligations with their IHL obligations. Beyond this, legal reasoning allows for differentiated solutions on when and on which issues one or the other branch prevails.

5. Nature of obligations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Special Character ◽  
International Human ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter first introduces the relationship of international human rights law to public international law, which is crucial to understanding the ‘special character’ of international human rights obligations. It then introduces the basic idea of what it means for a legal obligation to be described as ‘special’ in nature in international law, and discusses several key consequences that can be said to flow from this character in terms of reservations, implementing human rights obligations, limitations and derogations, enforcement, and withdrawal.

Israel's Supreme Court and International Human Rights Law: The Judgement on ‘Moderate Physical Pressure’

2000 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
International Human ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Spiral Model

AbstractOn September 6, 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, handed down its latest judgement on the question of the use of ‘moderate physical pressure’. The lack of substantial references to international law in the Court's reasoning was notable. The present article examines the possible reasons for the reluctance to introduce international law and goes on to analyse the effects of this reluctance. The analysis finds that the reasons for leaving international human rights norms out are less than compelling and that keeping the necessity defence for interrogators using force against detainees leaves a substantial risk of abuse.The article goes on to place the judgement in the larger context of Israeli human rights practices. By applying the so-called ‘spiral model’, developed within international relations theory, it is possible to examine linkages between international norms and domestic change. The model allows for an evaluation of what progress has been achieved so far and for suggestions as to which measures are still needed. It is found that the judgement reasonably can be interpreted as a tactical concession and that further progress in efforts to eradicate the use of force against detainees is dependent upon a change in the attitude of the Israeli public. Future efforts should thus be aimed at influencing Israeli public opinion to ensure that torture is eliminated from Israeli interrogation practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document