چکیده:
The legitimacy debate between ‘universal’ human rights and its apparent conflict
with the Islamic value system (broadly characterized as the ‘relativist’ challenge to
‘universal’ human rights) is still far from settled. My paper will reflect on this
debate in terms of the current international treaty law.
The paper will consider this conflict in the light of the interaction of Islamic states
with multilateral human rights regimes, starting from United Nations Charter,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two covenants (International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights) and the stream of other international and regional
human rights regimes. It will analyze through the ‘reservations’ clause of human
rights regimes, the interaction between ‘universal’ human rights and Islamic law.
In particular, it will focus on how Islamic states have put forward what has come
to be known as the “Islamic reservations”, and it will attempt to outline to what
extent these reservations are contradictory to universal human rights, as noted in
the objections to these reservations by various states parties to the treaties. An
assessment will also be made of the extent to which the human rights to which the
‘Islamic reservations’ have been made, may actually be incorporated into the legal
systems of the reserving Islamic countries.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Consequently, reservations based on made by the Muslim states are perceived as running contrary to international treaty law and unmindful of the interests of the universalized human rights regimes.
Or, it refuses to accept the operation of international relations within diverse cultural zones and in place of the latter, introduces the uniformity of universal human rights<FootNote No="195" Text=" It is interesting to note here that several states had formulated various reservations based on cultural peculiarities to the two covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR), as well as to CRC and CEDAW.
” (King Gamble, 1980: 386) On the other hand, insisting on the special status of normative treaties, especially human rights treaties, writers like Clarke have argued that by their unique nature human rights treaties should be given special treatment<FootNote No="209" Text=" &amp;quot;These treaties are based on the public international law principle that individuals have certain inalienable rights, which states cannot justify overriding by their imperatives of culture, tradition, expediency, economic advantage or such other factors.
The extent of “Shari’a reservations”<FootNote No="224" Text=" For the purposes of the present study, &amp;quot;Shari’a reservations&amp;quot; are defined as reservations (including substantive and sweeping declarations and interpretative statements) made by Muslim countries to the international human rights treaties, wherein it is explicitly stated that the reservations are made due to the incompatibility of the treaty provisions to the norms of Islamic religious law.