خلفائے راشدین کی حدودِ شرب، زنا اور قذف کی پالیسیز اور معاصر فقہاء کی تشریحات کا تقابلی جائزہ

This chapter begins with a brief description of the development and scope of obligations to ensure respect for human rights under international law. It addresses the sources of international legal obligation to ensure respect for human rights. A catalogue of international human rights standards that appear to bind all States is provided. International mechanisms designed to secure the enforcement of human rights standards are then examined. These international mechanisms are designed to operate in conjunction with municipal enforcement regimes. This chapter provides the foundation for the consideration of the interaction of human rights and trade norms and other rules and values. The three traditional sources of international legal obligations are: treaties; customary international law; and general principles of law. A comprehensive assessment of legality requires a careful consideration of the legal rules, procedures and institutions involved in the regulation of international trade.Keywords: customary international law; general law principles; human rights; International law; municipal enforcement regimes; trade norms; treaties

This study undertakes a philosophical examination of the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law, revealing the paradoxical tensions between the pursuit of justice and the protection of human rights. Through a critical analysis of the normative foundations of these two fields, this research discloses the differing ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying international criminal law and human rights law. Employing a qualitative research methodology, this study conducts an in-depth examination of the major international criminal law and human rights law instruments, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, this research undertakes a critical discourse analysis of the jurisprudence of international criminal law and human rights law institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights. This study argues that the paradox of justice at the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law stems from the differing conceptions of justice and human rights that underlie these two fields. While international criminal law prioritizes retributive justice and the punishment of perpetrators, human rights law emphasizes restorative justice and the protection of human dignity. To reconcile this paradox, this research proposes a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields. Drawing on the concepts of "justice as recognition" and "human rights as capabilities," this study develops a novel approach to understanding the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law. The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between justice, human rights, and international law. This research informs strategies for enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions, ultimately promoting a more just and equitable international legal order. This study employs a qualitative research methodology, including critical discourse analysis and philosophical inquiry. The research questions guiding this study include: What are the differing ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying international criminal law and human rights law? How do these differing assumptions give rise to the paradox of justice at the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law? How can a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields reconcile this paradox?. The study's findings suggest that a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields is necessary to reconcile the paradox of justice. The research also highlights the importance of enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions in promoting a more just and equitable international legal order. The key lessons from this study include the importance of understanding the complex relationships between justice, human rights, and international law, and the need for a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields. The study also emphasizes the importance of enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions.

In the study, the content and the normative-legal foundations of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are comprehensively analysed on the basis of the diversity of views existing in legal doctrine, international instruments, and judicial practice. In the first part of the study, the relevance of the topic and its main directions are identified. It is noted that the normative-legal foundations of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are characterised by a broader scope and a higher degree of systematic coherence compared to other principles of international law. The second part of the study analyses the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the key areas of activity of international organisations; finally, a number of significant aspects are highlighted by distinguishing between international organisations operating in this field. The third part examines the international legal foundations of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the essential characteristics of international treaties as the normative basis of this principle. In this regard, reference to specific international treaties makes it possible to arrive at well-founded conclusions. In the fourth part, a number of important conclusions are drawn regarding the content and normative foundations of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the key conclusions is that the fundamental provisions of this principle are incorporated into the domestic legislation of States regardless of their participation in international treaties in this field. In this context, the primary purpose of the State to ensure human rights, the direct applicability of human rights, the determination of human rights standards on the basis of international treaties, and similar elements may be regarded as essential. The content of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has been further enriched and developed in a new dimension through the specific principles formed in the field of human rights (humanism, justice, the principle most favourable to the individual, development, etc.). Keywords: human rights, international organisations, international treaties, human rights standards, principles of international law, normative-legal foundations, international obligations, international legal custom, international judicial practice, general principles of law.

This review examines recent scholarship on the rise of international human rights law and proposes that social movements have played critical roles both in elevating the standards of human rights in international law and in leveraging these standards into better local practices. Institutionalization of universal human rights principles began in the immediate post–World War II period, in which civil society actors worked with powerful states to establish human rights as a key guiding principle of the international community and to ensure the actors' continuing participation in international human rights institutions. The subsequent decades saw various hurdles arise in international politics, but civil society actors skillfully used the small openings that they had gained to continue to advance the cause of human rights. They held powerful governments accountable to their lofty promises about human rights and worked with sympathetic governments in the UN system to continuously upgrade the standards of international human rights. They also leveraged human rights laws toward better local practices, taking advantage of new political opportunities created by human rights laws, using expanding international channels to increase flows of human and material resources, embracing globally legitimated vocabularies of human rights to frame their movements, and integrating the broad cultural effects of human rights laws to construct new social movement identity and actorhood. The review then points out some potential pitfalls of international human rights laws: professionalization of movement actors, which can undermine the impact of social movements and lead to less ambitious and transformative goals; privileging of some causes over others, which can lead to demobilization around certain issues; and overextending movement goals, which can give rise to strong backlash against human rights principles.

This Thesis deals with the role of the Constitution and the Domestic Law in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights as defined under the United Nations Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. It seeks to explain some aspects of the obligation of states parties to take legislative measures for purposes of the effective implementation of the Covenants at the domestic level. The study is conducted in the context of a case study of Jordan as a state party. The Thesis consists of three main parts, divided into seven Chapters and followed by Chapter VIII which is a general conclusion. Part One, contains two Chapters dealing with the relationship between the modern international standards of human rights and the domestic legal systems. Chapter I is a brief legal and historical background. It seeks to highlight some of the major developments in the legal background of the modern international standards of human rights and the legal system of Jordan. Chapter II discusses the applicability of the international rules of human rights within the domestic legal systems with special reference to Jordan. Part Two, is devoted to the first part of the role of the constitution and domestic law in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights; namely, the adoption of equivalent standards at the domestic level. It also contains two Chapters. Whereas Chapter III focuses on the civil and political rights. Chapter IV deals with the economic, social and cultural rights. A list of four rights has been selected from each catalogue in order to define precisely what are the legislative measures required in the case of each right. Part Three, deals with the other part of the role of the constitution and domestic law, i.e. the introduction of sufficient domestic legal safeguards. It contains three Chapters. Chapter V discusses the role of the Judiciary as the vindicator of human rights, and the independence of the Judiciary as a legal safeguard against human rights violations. Chapter VI deals with the rights to judicial review of administrative actions, as a guarantee against excess or abuse of powers by the administrative authorities, and as an inevitable requirement for the rule of law and respect for human rights in practice. Chapter VII discusses emergency powers and the Impact of the state of emergency on human rights; and considers the question of derogation under Article 4 of the Political Covenant. It focuses on the role of the Constitution and the domestic legislature in imposing restrictions on the right of the national authorities to declare a public emergency and on the emergency powers themselves when the state of emergency is declared. Finally, the concluding Chapter VIII is a general assessment of; The role of the constitution and the domestic laws in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights, the present system of international scrutiny of the domestic legislative measures, and the performance of Jordan as a state party and the existing legal system of Jordan in general.

The article is devoted to the issue of human rights protection in the field of business within the framework of the UN. It was found that states have, in accordance with international human rights law, an obligation to protect everyone within their territory and/or jurisdiction from human rights violations committed by commercial enterprises. This obligation means that states must have effective laws and regulations to prevent and remedy business-related human rights violations and ensure access to effective remedies for those whose rights have been violated. Corporate responsibility for the observance of human rights exists regardless of the ability or willingness of states to fulfill their duty to protect human rights. Regardless of context, states and businesses retain these distinct but complementary responsibilities. When a business enterprise violates human rights, States must ensure that affected people have access to an effective remedy through the court system or other legitimate non-judicial process. For their part, companies are expected to establish effective grievance mechanisms for any individuals or communities affected by or involved in their activities. the main duty to protect human rights rests with the state. This is the main duty of the state not only according to the UN Convention, but also as stipulated by various human rights documents. The state must take measures that will allow to effectively guarantee and implement human rights and human rights standards in its countries. Furthermore, it is envisaged that this protection should extend to human rights violations committed by third parties, including businesses or corporate entities. By setting that the protection of human rights is a fundamental responsibility of the state, the Guiding Principles remain consistent with international law, as human rights treaties and conventions are binding on states and not on non­state actors. In addition, states should clearly state the expectation that all commercial enterprises located within their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations.

As we have seen, there exist different ethical and religious concepts concerning the notion of human being or concerning the question of who is entitled to human dignity: only the human being after completion of birth or also the embryo and if so from which stage? The different approaches considered or advocated in Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are obvious; they may be decisive in answering the question whether therapeutic and reproductive cloning can or should be allowed or have to be ruled out by a future international agreement or national legislation. The different approaches referred to may even have to be taken into account when interpreting the respective human rights standards, in particular the protection of human dignity, under the proviso, however, that it is considered appropriate to have recourse to extralegal considerations in the interpretation of human rights standards at all.

The article is devoted to the theoretical and legal analysis of constitutional human rights and freedoms under martial law. The main attention is paid to the analysis of human rights, which may be limited during the war. The division of rights into absolute and relative rights is considered. It has been established that rights that cannot be limited under any conditions are absolute. The legal definition of the concept of martial law is analyzed. It was found that martial law is the main legal basis for restricting the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen. It was noted that the grounds for introducing military service are threats to national security or the territorial integrity of the state. Mechanisms and guarantees aimed at protecting human rights under martial law are emphasized. It is noted that any restrictions on human rights must be justified, proportionate, and necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of security and protection of the state. It was noted that the establishment and provision of human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the state. Therefore, during the legal regime of martial law, the state cannot abandon its obligation to ensure human rights. Enshrining the list of rights that are not subject to restriction, even during martial law, is a constitutional guarantee of human and citizen rights. It has been proven that respect for human rights is a guarantee of state authority both at the national and international levels. The right to human life as the greatest value of the state is emphasized separately. It has been established that according to international customary law, the right to life is a fundamental human right. Attention is drawn to human dignity as an important and inalienable value. Protection of human dignity must be guaranteed both at the legislative level and at the level of public awareness. It was established that the protection of human rights under martial law is extremely difficult. Therefore, the development of mechanisms for the protection of human rights is particularly important for ensuring justice, the development of democracy and the restoration of peace in our country.

This paper explores the different dimensions of paramilitarism, internationally as a contextual backdrop and Philippines-specific as a chief line of inquiry, and consider how it affects the ability of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (“GRP”) to comply with its mandate under the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) which it entered into with the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front. Particularly, this paper examines how the continued failure to disband the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Units (CAFGUs) and revamp existing state policies on paramilitarism can be measured against the universally-accepted standards of human rights and international humanitarian law whose obligatory prescriptions are deemed binding upon the Philippine state both under international law and by explicit subscription through the CARHRIHL. Ultimately, this paper forwards proposals and recommendations as to how the issue of paramilitarism can be brought to the fore of the CARHRIHL implementation dialogues and how the government and the community can be most effectively engaged in the campaign to advance the precepts of human rights and international humanitarian law by minimizing incidents of abuse perpetrated by the defense establishment, both regular and paramilitary.

The article is devoted to the identification, definition and research of theoretical and praxeological factors and trends leading to the objectification of the issue of codification works in the field of international legal standards of human rights. It is proved that issue of human and citizen rights and freedoms, since the creation of the UN in 1945, has been a fundamental object of cooperation between states in the modern international community (see the Preamble to the 1945 UN Charter). That is why at the level of such an association of modern states, as well as at the regional and bilateral levels, in order to detail and specify the mandatory obligations of states in this most important sphere of interaction, a large number of multilateral and bilateral international interstate treaties, which, firstly, affect a wide range of subjects (people, women, children, disabled people, believers, prisoners, soldiers, prisoners of war, the elderly, pensioners, athletes, etc.), and secondly, establish mandatory obligations of their member states (international legal obligations of states, obligations of states under international treaties signed by them) in relation to a wide range of rights recognized by their legally recognized international catalog (personal, political, economic, social, cultural, environmental), thirdly, in the process of their implementation in various conditions (peacetime, state of martial law or war, environmental and man-made disasters, other extraordinary conditions of existence and functioning of statehood, etc.). It is noted that in the modern world, since the creation of the UN, the protection and observance of the basic rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen have ceased to be the competence of a specific country, but have become the business of the entire international community, since, first of all, it is the "alpha and omega" of international cooperation of states in its boundaries (the teleological factor of the modern international order – author); secondly, it is precisely within its limits that a powerful international legal array of treaty law documents was created regarding such specialized protection and protection of human and citizen rights / thanks to the increased concern and attention of the international community to these issues at various times, authoritative international organizations, including the UN, adopted about 300 declarations, conventions, charters/ (determining source factor of the modern international order – author); thirdly, for a long time, they have been the most important task of many states of the world community in terms of fulfilling their international legal obligations, taken within the framework of the international treaties signed by them and the implementation of their instructions within the limits of national jurisdiction (a mandatory factor of the modern international order – author); fourthly, there are clear international legal mechanisms of protection, protection and control over the fulfillment by member states of the international community of international legal obligations in the field of human and citizen rights and freedoms (the technologically protected factor of international protection, protection and control of modern international order – author); fifthly, the regulatory and technological phenomenon "international legal standards of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen" was used for the first time, which was transformed into an important, modern, effective phenomenology of modern international law, based on the relevant international and national implementation mechanisms of the international treaty law and provides for the mandatory borrowing of the above standards by the national constitutional legislation of the states – respectively, either signatories, or participants, or parties to relevant contractual international legal acts (transformational and implementation factor of international protection, protection and control of the modern international order – author). It is argued that, taking into account the special importance and socio-legal significance of international legal standards of human and citizen rights and freedoms for the formation and implementation of institutional-organizational and regulatory-obligatory guidelines of the modern international legal order, based on the fundamental principles of public international law, the problem of their codification acquires of significant importance.

The article deals with the formation process, the current state and perspectives of the relationship between states that do not respect human rights and basic freedoms. Such states pose a danger to the stable development of international relations and fruitful cooperation between states, and ultimately to international peace and security. The modern world is characterized by the fact that the expansion of human and citizen rights occurs as a result of the development of norms of both national and international law. This bilateral process helps mutual enrichment of legislation and allows raising the bar of human rights to a new level. Speaking of security, the world still ignores the real protection of human rights, replacing it with a formal one. The principle of respect for human rights has a direct and inverse relationship with international and national security: states that systematically abuse human rights are recognized as initiators of aggression. And external aggression itself contradicts the interests of both the aggressor state itself and its population. Aggression entails the application of serious international sanctions, which will hit its citizens hard, in particular, and will also entail a serious restriction of civil rights. And vice versa: an improvement in the situation in the field of human rights protection reduces the probability of an aggressive war. The refusal of a separate state to fulfill the requirements of the corresponding principles of respect for human rights does not cancel their importance for international and national security, and does not eliminate the negative consequences that such a refusal would entail. The attack of the Russian Federation led to serious and massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which had catastrophic consequences for the exercise of almost all human rights in Ukraine. But over the past two decades, the Russian authorities have systematically violated and restricted basic freedoms within their own state, closed down independent mass media, and banned peaceful protests in the country. And the war in Ukraine entails a further deterioration of the state of human rights in Russia: now a new iron curtain is being lowered there, behind which the authorities oppose the exercise of civil rights and a free and independent civil society.

The role that a business enterprise plays in human rights impacts caused by others - complicity - is a thread running through most topics covered in a typical business and human rights (BHR) course. The risk of corporate complicity is more common than direct human rights violations by companies. Corporate complicity scenarios can be less obvious, more difficult to identify as having human rights impacts connected to a business enterprise, and more challenging to address consistent with international standards and stakeholder expectations for responsible business conduct. Through the lens of complicity, BHR teachers can explore human rights standards under international law, the ways companies are connected to human rights impacts, and tools for holding companies accountable and providing remedy to individuals affected by business activity. This chapter outlines the elements of complicity under international and national law, considers complicity in the context of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, surveys common corporate complicity scenarios in different sectors, and describes an approach to teaching complicity in a BHR course.

The nature of the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law remains a vexed one. In recent years, human rights lawyers and activists have sought to apply human rights norms to military conduct in international and internal conflicts, and during belligerent occupations. With varying degrees of success, complainants have brought their cases before international tribunals, and to national courts able to apply international human rights standards. This development has occurred largely because forums exist to hear human rights claims, whereas they do not for persons claiming individual redress for violations of international humanitarian law. However, human rights norms have also been seen as more restrictive: as placing greater constraints on States' freedom to conduct hostilities, preventively detain, and administer occupied territories. It is for this reason that some States have resisted attempts to extend the reach of international human rights law into areas traditionally seen as governed by international humanitarian law. This chapter argues that principles have now developed to govern the relationship between the two bodies of law. However, their application to different situations remains a work-in-progress and controversies remain. In particular, despite valient efforts, it remains unclear what what happens in situations where the two bodies of law cannot be read together? There are only few rules of norm-conflict resolution in international law, all of which have limited application in the context of the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law. Most inconsistencies between the rules of the two bodies of law are not true conflicts at all, as they do not require States to conduct themselves in different ways. It is simply that international humanitarian law is the more permissive system. In such situations, to argue that the two bodies of law are ‘complementary and mutually reinforcing’ is to do little more than issue a policy prescription. In reality, in such cases States have to make a choice as regards which rules they wish to comply (a choice which is likely to be a political one) and take the consequences. There are fundamental incompatibilities between international humanitarian law and human rights law, not only as regards discrete rules but in their theoretical bases. Attempts can be made to reconcile them, to avoid conflicts, but they can only be provisional and on a case-by-case basis. The legal tools available cannot always provide an answer. Absent legislation, conflicts will remain. And in a world of States with differing interests and values, the adoption of new rules governing armed conflict and belligerent occupation will be difficult, if not impossible. One difference between the two bodies of rules, in particular, remains fundamental. Despite developments over past decades which are said to indicate a ‘humanization of humanitarian law’, international humanitarian law, in contrast to human rights law, is not based on an individual rights paradigm. It is this difference, even excluding the differences in the substantive protections accorded individuals under the two bodies of law, which will ensure that individuals continue to bring complaints regarding their treatment in situations of armed conflict before human rights bodies. And even if human rights bodies take the view that States’ human rights obligations in situations of armed conflict are to be interpreted using the yardstick of international humanitarian law, their interpretations of humanitarian law are likely to differ from lawyers advising States’ defence ministries and armed forces, who are likely to continue to be unhappy with such trespasses into what they see as their chasse gardee.

The proliferation of international human rights treaties, committees and courts over the last sixty years represents enormous achievement. International human rights laws are now asserted throughout the world by individuals of many cultures and traditions. Yet, at the same time international human rights ideas and principles continue to have difficulty in manifesting their relevance in the daily lives of those who are geographically and culturally distant from international institutions Two new books - William Twining’s Human Rights, Southern Voices: Francis Deng, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Yash Ghai, Upendra Baxi, and Helen Stacy’s Human Rights for the 21st Century - address aspects of this paradox and lay the foundations for exciting changes in the international human rights regime to facilitate greater human rights permeation and legitimacy for actors globally in the 21st century. In this Essay, I provide a critical account of some important remaining gaps in the literature on international human rights theory and practice. I argue that notwithstanding the fact that giving voice to those oppressed is a main function of the movement and that the meaning of human rights must be grounded in local culture at grassroots levels, relatively little scholarship bases its analyses on the discourse of the subjects of international human rights law and particularly those actually involved in human rights violations cases in the global South. What are victims’ and legal actors’ conceptions and expectations of human rights and their agendas and experiences in processing their cases? What factors affect their attitudes and behavior in this context? Such knowledge is critical in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the workings of human rights on the ground. It is also key to enable greater comprehension of local, Southern actors’ needs, epistemologies and micro-realities. As such, bottom-up perspectives from local actors must inform macro-level scholarly conversations on human rights as well as policies aimed at improving respect for human rights at grassroots levels. I provide some such data from a forthcoming book, grounded in interpretive theory and based on the perspectives of legal and lay actors involved in the processing of human rights violation cases of violence against women in India. Actors’ discourses contextualize some of the issues set out in both volumes. The Essay further links actors’ understandings and objectives to norm diffusion theory in the international relations literature and to vernacularization theory in the law and anthropology literature, which like both reviewed books engage the issue of the permeation of human rights standards to grassroots levels. The Essay additionally argues that on the basis that a culturally plural universalism in human rights is an acceptable aim, we are in dire need of a new integrated analytical framework. This framework must be grounded not only in the perspectives of Southern actors, but must simultaneously imbed their epistemologies within the realities of human rights case processing in the legally pluralistic global South. This involves not only formal courts but also informal justice or quasi-legal non-State justice systems processing human rights cases. Drawing on insights from both books, I conclude with a call for more research into Southern actors’ human rights perspectives, including interpretive accounts of their contextual realities. Such knowledge is critical in order to innovatively engage the controversies in international human rights theory and practice and to assist human rights organizations and advocates to become more relevant to the poor and the oppressed. As such, they will be better able to effect realizable change for the subjects of human rights in the global South.

They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade union...