الاستفادة القصوى من المذاهب المعتبرة بشأن حكم توزيع الشخص زكاته من غير دفعها لديوان الزكاة

This research examines parameters in taking maximum benefits from recognized Islamic schools concerning the rulings of a person’s Zakat distribution without paying it to Zakat centre. Fatwa of the National Fatwa Committee of Malaysia has been used as a model in this research. This discussion has been completed through a critical descriptive approach to describe the matter, conforming to scholars’ opinion and its analysis through reliable sources in Islamic jurisprudence and its origins, thus coming up with reasonable appropriate results. The directives and principles were extracted from Islamic rulings and linked to the current situation of the Islamic society so that this study would not remain merely imaginary theories, far from the reality of the community. The researchers meditated and criticized the advisory opinion issued by the National Fatwa Committee of Malaysia on the provision of distributing zakat directly to its receiver without paying it to the Zakat centre. The researchers found that the National Fatwa Committee adheres to the parameter in issuing fatwa, as it has issued a fatwa that contrary to the opinion of the official recognized fiqh school in Malaysia by considering appropriate interest.

From the Indian Ocean to the Arctic: What the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion Tells Us about Greenland

On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The judges held by a majority of 13:1 that the process of decolonisation of Mauritius is incomplete, owing to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago shortly before Mauritian independence, that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, and that all Member States of the United Nations should cooperate to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius. The (partial) decolonisation of Mauritius in 1968 and the treatment of the Chagos islanders (Chagossians) have important parallels with the purported decolonisation of Greenland in 1952–54. In both cases, the consultative body of the colonised people was neither fully independent nor representative of all the people concerned. No real choice was given to either body; rather the colonial power offered only the continuation of the status quo or professed self-determination on terms defined by the colonial power itself. Furthermore, the process of decolonisation was inherently linked to the forcible transfer of people in order to make way for a United States military facility. Nevertheless, there are some relevant differences. First of all, Greenland was purportedly decolonised in 1953, some seven years before the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (UNGA Res. 1514(XV) 1960). Second, the UN General Assembly accepted the Danish government’s representations regarding the full decolonisation of Greenland (UNGA Res. 849 (1954), in contrast to their position regarding Mauritius that decolonisation was and remains incomplete, owing to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago (UNGA Res(XX) 1965). Third, though the Chagossians have been recognised as indigenous at the UN, the British government has continually denied this status and (mis)characterises them as a transient people, while Denmark has accepted the status of the Greenlanders as both an indigenous people and a colonial people, entitled to self-determination. This article examines the implications for the judgment for the Greenland case as well as broader questions of self-determination of peoples. It concludes that the colonial boundaries continue to govern in decolonisation cases, with the consequence that the Greenlanders are likely to be held to be a single people; that the erga omnes character of the right to self-determination means that all States must cooperate to facilitate Greenlanders’ choices for their future; and that there remain significant procedural hurdles that prevent colonial and indigenous peoples having their voices heard, even in the matters that concern them most of all.

Nuclear Weapons Law

This book examines the law relating to the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons. By addressing in logical sequence the law regarding sovereignty, the threat or use of force, the conduct of nuclear hostilities, neutrality, weapons law and war crimes, the book illustrates the topics that an effective national command, control and communications system for nuclear weapons must address. Guidance is given on intractable issues, such as the responsibilities of remote submarine commanders. The continuing relevance of the ICJ's Nuclear Advisory Opinion is assessed, and the prospects for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are discussed. The book has been written in an accessible style so that it will be equally useful to lawyers and practitioners, including relevant commanders, politicians, policy staffs and academics. The objective is to state the law accurately and to explain its implications and provide practical guidance in this most sensitive area.

Advisory Opinion on the Request by the Pan African Lawyers Union Regarding the Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights and Other Human Rights Instruments Applicable in Africa (Afr. Ct. H.P.R.)

On December 4, 2020, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court) issued an advisory opinion on the compatibility of vagrancy laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter), the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (Children's Rights Charter), and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Protocol on Women's Rights). In this landmark advisory opinion, the Court considered an important social issue on the African continent.

INTRODUCTORY STUDY ON THE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW APPLICABLE TO ARMED CONFLICTS AT SEA

The purpose of the international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts at sea is the same as the International Humanitarian Law relevant to land conflicts: to reduce the destructive consequences of the armed conflict to a minimum, to protect the civilians and other non-combatants, as well as the civilian and cultural objects, to ensure a minimal consideration of some fundamental human rights and to limit the means and methods of warfare in accordance with the four customary cardinal principles, as considered by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons: the principles of humanity, distinction, proportionality and military necessity. Without any pretense of being an exhaustive study on the subject, the purpose of this article is to offer introductory insight into the international law of naval warfare.

Advisory competence on international law of the International Court of Justice: theoretical and practical issues

This article analyses, clarifi es the theoretical and practical issues of the advisory capacity of the International Court of Justice. Thereby, highlighting the role of the International Court of Justice in the development compliance and enforcement of international law from 1945 to now. Keywords: Jurisdiction, advisory opinion, International Court of Justice, international law.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on the Relationship between Human Rights and the Environment

On 15 November 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion OC-23/17 on the relationship between human rights and the environment. The opinion responded to a request made by Colombia pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction of state parties to the Convention resulting from mega-infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean region. The purpose of this article is to discuss the general issues dealt with by the Court, concentrating on the significance of this Advisory Opinion for international law. The opinion contains two main interesting aspects. First, in the light of the opinion, states are responsible for the environmental damage they cause, regardless of whether it occurs within their borders or beyond them. Second, the Advisory Opinion recognizes that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous, fundamental human right that shall be protected.