RACHID GHANNOUCHI AND THE RISE OF MUSLIM DEMOCRAT IN TUNISIA’S POLITICS

The paper highlights Rachid Ghannouchi’s political ideas in the context of the growth of political Islam in the Arab world by focusing on historical and political development that underlie the democratic process in Tunisia. It discusses political idealism he developed in Ennahda movement (The Renaissance Party) based on the principles of freedom and justice and its uncompromising opposition to the autocratic regime of Habib Bourguiba (1957-1987) and his successor Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali (1987-2011). The study is qualitative in nature in the form of documentary and content analysis. It used descriptive, analytical and historical approaches to analyse data derived from established archival sources. The study found that Ennahda which was founded by Ghannouchi in 1980 had broad influence in mainstream Islamic politics in Tunisia, that espouse to dismantle the autocratic rule and decolonise the corrupt practice and political suppression of past regime. The influence it developed had broadly impacted both Islamic and secular forces to converge and commit toward democratic rule, human rights and the principle of justice, freedom, and the rule of law

The paper highlights Rachid Ghannouchi’s political ideas in the context of the growth of political Islam in the Arab world by focusing on historical and political development that underlie the democratic process in Tunisia. It discusses political idealism he developed in Ennahda movement (The Renaissance Party) based on the principles of freedom and justice and its uncompromising opposition to the autocratic regime of Habib Bourguiba (1957-1987) and his successor Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali (1987-2011). The study is qualitative in nature in the form of documentary and content analysis. It used descriptive, analytical and historical approaches to analyse data derived from established archival sources. The study found that Ennahda which was founded by Ghannouchi in 1980 had broad influence in mainstream Islamic politics in Tunisia, that espouse to dismantle the autocratic rule and decolonise the corrupt practice and political suppression of past regime. The influence it developed had broadly impacted both Islamic and secular forces to converge and commit toward democratic rule, human rights and the principle of justice, freedom, and the rule of law

Reciprocity as Mutual Recognition

Judicial administration of justice through reasoned interpretation, application and clarification of legal principles and rules is among the oldest paradigms of 'constitutional justice'. The principles of procedural justice underlying WTO dispute settlement procedures, like the conformity of WTO dispute settlement rulings with principles of 'substantive justice', remain controversial. This contribution criticizes the recent, harsh condemnation of the WTO dispute settlement rulings in the Brazil Tyres case as 'committing grave injustice'. After recalling the customary law requirement of interpreting treaties and settling international disputes 'in conformity with principles of justice' and human rights, the contribution examines the WTO Appellate Body case-law from the perspective of diverse conceptions of 'conservative' and 'reformative justice', 'general' and 'particular justice', procedural and substantive justice, national and multilevel 'constitutional justice', and judicial protection of transnational rule-of-law for the benefit of citizens. The article concludes that the panel, appellate and arbitration reports in the Brazil Tyres dispute, like many other WTO Appellate Body reports, reflect a growing concern 'to administer justice' in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. WTO judges and investor-state arbitrators should follow the example of the ICJ and of European courts and clarify the 'principles of justice' justifying their settlement of international economic disputes so that 'justice is not only done, but also seen to be done', albeit subject to 'trial and error'. Legal practitioners should support – and, as part of the 'invisible college of international lawyers', hold accountable – the emergence of an 'international judiciary' as an 'epistemic community' committed to defending rule of law, peaceful settlement of disputes and 'principles of justice' in mutually beneficial economic cooperation among citizens across national frontiers.

The article is devoted to the analysis of historical development and formation of the ideas of guaranteeing human and civil rights and freedoms in the context of the theoretical and legal heritage of Ukraine. The author examines the key stages of the evolution of legal ideas, from ancient times to the present, noting the influence of different historical periods on the formation of the modern concept of human rights. Knowledge of the historical experience and theoretical foundations of human rights guarantees helps to formulate strategies and policies that can ensure real protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in conditions when they are threatened by external aggression and internal challenges. The article focuses on the importance of developing a natural law concept based on the principles of freedom, equality and justice, which are considered fundamental to understanding human rights. A special place in the analysis is occupied by the study of the Lithuanian Statute, Magdeburg Lawand the role of polemical works in the development of legal consciousness. The authors point to the multifaceted approaches to the study of human rights, their origin, content and relationship with the state, emphasising the importance of democratic regimes in the consolidation and enforcement of rights and freedoms. The conclusions emphasise that the notion of human rights as natural and primary is crucial for the development of Ukrainian political and legal thought, which contributed to the formation of the rule of law and civil society in Ukraine. In the context of post-war reconstruction, the authors emphasise the critical importance of respecting and ensuring human rights and freedoms as a basis for the restoration and development of a democratic society. Democratic regimes that uphold the principles of freedom, equality and justice are key to the effective reconstruction and stabilisation of society. The adoption of international human rights standards and their integration into national policies will be key to successful post-war reconstruction, while laying a solid foundation for Ukraine’s future development.

International customary law requires interpreting treaties and settling related disputes ‘in conformity with principles of justice’ and the human rights obligations of states. Yet, in contrast to UN law, European economic law and related adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and European courts, international trade and investment agreements and related adjudication tend to avoid references to ‘principles of justice’ and human rights. This contribution argues for a more coherent ‘judicial methodology’ in multilevel economic adjudication in order to promote ‘judicial comity’ and transnational rule of law for the benefit of citizens. As the incorporation of human rights into positive international law entails the recognition of individuals as legal subjects, judicial regard to human rights and other ‘principles of justice’ is indispensable for determining the ‘object and purpose’ of modern international economic law (IEL) (i). By acknowledging the ‘dual nature’ of modern legal systems (ii) and the common core of ‘principles of justice’ underlying multilevel guarantees of equal freedoms and sovereign rights to protect public interests, economic adjudication could become more legitimate and more coherent (iii). The ‘methodological individualism’ underlying human rights law (HRL) and constitutional democracies justifies a presumption of conceptualizing private and public economic regulation as integral parts of IEL aimed at protecting reasonable self-interests and equal rights of citizens (iv). The ‘consistent interpretation principle’ recognized in national and international legal systems confirms the need for ‘de-fragmenting IEL’ based on ‘normative individualism’ (v). Economic adjudication derives its constitutional legitimacy from protecting ‘constitutional justice’ as a constitutive principle not only of HRL but also of modern trade and investment adjudication (vi) It requires respect for legitimate ‘constitutional pluralism’ (vii) and transnational cooperation among courts so as to protect rule of law not only in terms of rights of governments but also for the benefit of private economic actors (viii). Judicial rule-clarification (ix) and judicial ‘system building’ are necessary parts of judicial protection of transnational rule of law so as to improve the ‘incomplete’, fragmented and often power-driven IEL system for the benefit of citizens as the ultimate sources of values and democratic owners of governance institutions (x).

This lecture, delivered at Copenhagen Business School on 18 November 2011, examines the legal and constitutional methodologies underlying private commercial arbitration, national, regional and worldwide adjudication in trade and investment regulation with a particular focus on ‘multilevel judicial governance’ inside the European Union (EU) relating to international agreements concluded by the EU and/or its member states. It explains the need for methodological legal constitutionalism in terms of theories of justice and human rights and emphasizes the customary law requirement of interpreting treaties, and settling disputes, ‘in conformity with principles of justice’, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Due to the ‘dual nature’ of modern legal systems as positive law including ‘principles of justice’, judges and ‘courts of justice’ must define their ‘constitutional functions’ of ‘administering justice’ with due regard to procedural and substantive human rights and other ‘principles of justice’. The particular context of European and international economic law (IEL) calls for interpreting the 5 competing conceptions of IEL not only in terms of Westphalian conceptions of ‘public international law among sovereign states’, ‘global administrative law’, multilevel economic regulation and international commercial and ‘conflicts law’, but also as part of multilevel constitutional rules based on respect for legitimate ‘constitutional pluralism’ aimed at protecting transnational rule of law for the benefit of citizens. Arguably, both human rights and the ‘rule of law’ requirements of EU law justify ‘cosmopolitan conceptions’ of IEL protecting transnational rule of law and limiting arbitrary violations of EU law and IEL by EU institutions and member states.

The more ‘globalization’ transforms ‘national public goods’ demanded by citizens into transnational ‘aggregate public goods’, the stronger becomes the need for reviewing ‘Westphalian governance failures’ and related ‘legal methodologies’ (Section I). Resolving the ‘constitutional problems’ and ‘collective action problems’ of multilevel governance (e.g. in terms of constituting, limiting, regulating and justifying multilevel governance powers, participation and representation of citizens in governance and dispute settlement, rule of law protecting cosmopolitan rights) requires supplementing national Constitutions by ‘multilevel cosmopolitan constitutionalism’ empowering citizens and multilevel governance institutions to realize their collective responsibility for protecting human rights, rule of law and other interdependent public goods across frontiers (Section II). The prevailing ‘political realism’ and ‘constitutional nationalism’ neglect the customary law requirements of interpreting international treaties and settling disputes ‘in conformity with the principles of justice and international law’, including ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’, in order to limit democratic accountability of governments (Section III). Human rights and multilevel protection of ‘principles of justice’ require cosmopolitan law based on constitutional, ‘public choice’ – and economic regulatory strategies limiting multilevel ‘governance failures’ as well as ‘market failures’ (Section IV). The human rights obligations of all UN member states limit governmental ‘margins of appreciation’ in dealing with economic crises and related austerity programmes (Section V). Governments and courts of justice must reconcile and ‘balance’ civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights depending on their diverse ‘contexts of justice’ and protect transnational rule of law not only in terms of rights and obligations of governments, but also as cosmopolitan rights of citizens as ‘agents of justice’ and ‘democratic owners’ of all governance institutions (Section VI).

The research aims to; Finding the substantive responsibility of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights based on the principle of distributive justice according to Aristotle. Find personal arrangements for the procedural responsibilities of ad hoc judges according to the provisions of Indonesian legislation. Evaluating administrative responsibilities through oversight mechanisms conducted on ad hoc human rights judges. Normative juridical methods are used in research. The results of the study that ad hoc judges decide cases of gross violations of human rights do not consider the legal elements of gross violations of human rights. The evidentiary procedure is weak because ad hoc judges are institutionally independent and personally not because the influence of the chief justice is still there. Bawasmari's internal oversight is inadequate as the judge's disciplinary examination is not transparent. This research aims to 1) Find the substantive responsibilities of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights (HAM) based on the principle of distributive justice according to Aristotle. 2) Find the regulation of procedural responsibility of ad hoc judges personally according to the provisions of legislation in Indonesia. 3) Evaluate the admi nistrative responsibility through the supervision mechanism carried out on ad hoc judges, more specifically judges in human rights courts. This research method uses a normative juridical approach or an approach that examines the law as a rule, also called doctrinal legal research, because this research is conducted or aimed at written regulations. The results showed that the responsibility of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights should use the elements of the law of gross violations of human rights (HAM) but the fact that it is ruled out means that the judge's decision is considered unfair because it does not comply with existing legal standards, as well as the responsibility of judges in applying the evidentiary system in the legal process is weak. It was also found that the procedures for resolving gross violations of human rights have been implemented, but currently judges are institutionally independent and personally not so, therefore their decisions are certainly not fully independent, because they are influenced by many factors such as the influence of the head of the court or other issues from outside the judge. The internal supervision mechanism by the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia is still considered half-hearted because the quality and integrity of supervision is inadequate, as seen in the process of disciplinary examination of judges that is not transparent.

This study aims to analyze whether court decisions in drug abuse cases are based on Indonesia's principles of justice and human rights. This study is important to conduct because there are quite significant differences in the sanctions received by perpetrators of drug crimes, giving rise to the perception that judges are inconsistent in providing fair decisions for perpetrators of drug crimes. In their decisions, judges often ignore the principles of human rights to provide a deterrent effect to perpetrators of drug crimes. Hence, the assumption arises that judges in many cases discriminate against defendants of drug crimes. This study uses a normative legal approach and case studies to examine the case submitted in decision number 1041/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Sby. Based on these findings, the judge attempts to uphold a fair decision by imposing a sentence commensurate with the error and considering the economic ability of the perpetrator to pay the fine, with the option of additional imprisonment for six months if unable to pay. This decision approach aims to uphold the principles of human rights. Keywords: Drug Abuse; Human Rights; Principle of Justice

The article considers the principle of the fundamental principle of law ¬ – justice in the state wartime regulation. The concept of justice is one of the cornerstones and most relevant issues of jurisprudence worldwide. The system of fundamental principles of law includes the principles of justice, equality, freedom and humanism. Their valuable combination is the principle of the rule of law. Existential conditions of war determine the aggravation of the public need for justice and its reflection in the current legislation. The legislator must take them into account in the rulemaking work. This applies to both institutional and subjective justice. It is also important to take into account the understanding of the principle of justice in law as freedom, and law as a measure of freedom. In the context of justice, both positive and negative freedom acquire meaning. The war increases psycho-emotional tension in the society to the maximum level. Under such circumstances, Leon Petrażycki’s Psychological Theory of Law takes on special significance. As the human psyche adapts to social life, law changes accordingly. Attention to the issues of justice in legislation increases the importance of natural law. Just as the Second World War caused a return to natural law theories, the events of the Russian-Ukrainian war are going to increase attention to human rights and increase the social role of natural law theories. In the conditions of war, Ukrainians demonstrate a high level of legal culture. There was no rise in mob violence or illegal establishment of justice in the society. Therefore, it is in the context of the legal procedure that ensuring procedural justice and the requirements of the rule of law gain their particular importance. In the conditions of war, the value features of law acquire special importance compared to the instrumental ones. Ensuring the moral value of the law, strengthening the role of the fundamental principles – the principle of justice and the principle of the rule of law should be the way to satisfy the increased public demand for justice in legislation. Key words: fundamental principles of law, justice, institutional justice, principle of rule of law, Psychological Theory of Law, Natural Law Theories.

Giving value to the land occupied by a certain community of people incorrectly will result in conflict between the people themselves (horizontal conflict), or between the people who hold the rights and the authorities (vertical conflict), so that in turn the foundations of the community's life will be damaged. This especially happens on land in rural areas, which is of course different from land use in urban areas. For example, land in rural areas is used for social and economic life. Social life, such as having a family, going to school, worship, recreation, and sports are carried out in the village; while economic activities such as farming, gardening, animal husbandry, and cutting wood in the forest are executed outside the village. However, on the other hand, in urban areas, because land value is economically advantageous, land use is conducted as efficiently and effectively as possible, therefore, mixing of uses can occur. The population growth in urban areas in the last decade has been increasing. Apart from the migration flow of people from outside the city into urban areas, there is also a process of urbanization which especially affects suburban areas (fringe areas). The Preamble to the 1945 Constitution contains Pancasila (State of Belief in God), basic principles of human rights, justice ( Rule of Law), people's sovereignty (Democratic State), as well as the duties and obligations of the Government (all state institutions) to create a Welfare State which includes protecting Indonesia's bloodshed. This type of research is Normative research. The approaches used are a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The data source used is secondary data. Data analysis was carried out descriptively qualitatively. Concluding is conducted by using a deductive method, namely concluding from general to specific, especially those related to the research topic, namely Legal Review of Regional Government Authority in Land Disputes Based on the Principle of Shared Justice. the basic values it describes. This elaboration can be carried out creatively and dynamically in new forms to embody the same spirit and within the limits permitted by these basic values. This explanation clearly must not conflict with basic values. The basic values in question are values taken from Pancasila. Law is a tool for creating justice. Justice in the law is justice that is desired for all people who live within the framework of the law itself

The rehabilitation of individuals struggling with addiction to narcotics, as outlined in Law No. 35/2009, underscores a two-pronged strategy that prioritises the recovery of health and social reintegration. This approach eschews criminal retribution in favour of more holistic methods of addressing the issue. The concept of restorative justice has emerged as an alternative approach to narcotics crime resolution, emphasising the recovery of offenders, victims and communities through dialogue and deliberation, rather than punishment. However, this approach is not without its challenges, and as such, the establishment of a robust legal framework is paramount. This research aims to integrate the concept and principles of restorative justice in the handling of narcotics abuse cases in Law No. 35/2009 based on the principle of justice and examine the legal reform of the application of restorative justice in the settlement of narcotics offences. The research method employed is a normative research method through a legislative approach and analytical approach. The results obtained demonstrated that the concepts and principles of restorative justice can be integrated in handling narcotics abuse cases based on Law No. 35/2009 to realise the principle of justice. The fundamental tenet of restorative justice emphasises the rehabilitation of individuals who use narcotics as a means of recovery, superseding the mere imposition of punishment. It is therefore imperative that a comprehensive revision of Law No. 35/2009 is made in order to incorporate the restorative justice approach on a more extensive scale.

The article analyses the criteria for classification of liberal legal ideas. The author proposes to classify legal liberalism into: State liberalism, when the principle of freedom primarily concerns the relationship between an individual and the State, his/her independence from it, and limited State interference in the private life of citizens; social liberalism, when the principle of freedom requires coordination with other fundamental principles of law, primarily equality, justice and humanism, which requires solving the problem of social class stratification; personal liberalism, when the principle of freedom establishes the sphere of privacy, opportunities for personal development and tolerance. The author establishes that legal libertarianism is a type of legal liberalism which interprets the relationship between the principles of equality and freedom as equality of opportunity rather than social equality. The state should not interfere in personal and economic life, as freedom is capable of self-regulation and the formation of the legal order of a free society. Law should be ‘living’, based on independence and maximum freedom. The author advocates the priority of negative rights as those that correspond to human nature. It is argued that modern liberalism is largely dependent on technology, in particular, the Internet, which is complexly regulated and the centre of the deployment of human freedom. The liberal doctrine of negative freedom, state restrictions, human rights, social equality and justice, private property and competition has moved to the global level, where any sphere of life is tested for expanding the boundaries of freedom: behaviour, worldview, self-identification, language, appearance, etc. Such liberalism can no longer be simply referred to by the preposition ‘neo’, it is global liberalism, the boundaries of which are constantly expanding. The author proposes to classify legal liberalism according to the criterion of approaches to the organisation of democratic processes. 1. Organisational, based on the focus on governmental and non-governmental democratic institutions and institutions which, by their functional purpose, should ensure the processes of democracy and the implementation of the principle of individual and collective freedom. 2. Competitive, based on the position that individual and collective freedom develops through equal human opportunities, which in turn imposes the necessary institutions of democracy and human rights.

Judicial administration of justice through reasoned interpretation, application and clarification of legal principles and rules is among the oldest paradigms of constitutional justice. The principles of procedural justice underlying investor-state arbitration remain controversial, especially if confidentiality and party autonomy governing commercial arbitration risk neglecting adversely affected third parties and public interests. There are also concerns that rule-following and formal equality of foreign investors and home states may not ensure substantive justice in the settlement of investment disputes unless arbitrators and courts take more seriously their customary law obligation of settling disputes in conformity with human rights obligations of governments and other principles of justice calling for judicial balancing of all private and public interests affected by the dispute. The constitutional task of judges to apply the law and settle disputes in conformity with principles of justice may require reviewing whether judicial reasoning remains compatible with redistributive principles of case-specific equity, social justice and corrective justice.