Abstract

The treaties are considered as the most important way for the country to promote its foreign policy. In general, it results from military work, so the winner will use it to fulfill its aims that were not achieved through the war. This study deals with a treaty which was signed by the Ottoman and the Russian empires in 1774. This research also shows the terms of the treaty and its effects. It also explains the Fiqhi issues raised in it, and indicates if it is compatible with the legitimate constraints of international treaties in Islamic Fiqh. The constraints include granting political independence to Crimea, paying huge restitution to the Russians, and waving some of their lands, which are not acceptable in Islamic law unless necessary. So, the Hanafi school scholars decided that treaties with a warring party is not acceptable at all unless it could assist Muslims in the war or to increase the state's strength. “It is permitted only as a way to fight, because then it will be a metaphorical way of fighting.” [Al kasaniu: Badayie Alsanayie 7:108] Otherwise, the negotiator should achieve for the state which it would have to achieve by fighting. The study makes it clear that this happened in some terms of the treaty. Although it was widely deemed to be a curse, it is like a treasure for researchers in international relations and legitimate politics

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call