Shari'a Law and Human Rights Treaties Conflict

Shari'a Law and Human Rights Treaties Conflict



Shari'a Law and Human Rights Treaties Conflict

Introduction

The Saudi government presently enforces regulation requiring all women have a male “guardian, “defined loosely as a father, husband, brother, or son. Women are required to get the permission of the said guardian for work, healthcare, and access to college, marriage, or travel. Even in regards to their parental responsibilities, in order for women to enroll their children in school, view their school files, open bank accounts, or travel with their children they need written consent from their only guardian, who is likely their father.' Human rights violations like these have been studied profusely, with much research studying why some states ratify the treaties while others are slow to do so. Specifically, past studies have shown that countries have ratified human rights treaties for a number of reasons, but they have been found to accept these treaties for monetary reasons. This involves states accepting the terms of human rights treaties in order to position themselves for aid and loans. Of the states that ratify human rights treaties, previous research has shown that many do not readily obey the treaties. Of particular interest in our study, is why, after accepting the terms of the treaties, these states choose not to obey them. Islamic majority states seem to be an exceptional case since there is a great deal of attention paid by both the media and scholars on the potential conflict between Shari'a, or Islamic Law, and human rights treaties. In essence, the human rights situation begs the question, why do Islamic majority states sign and ratify human rights treaties and then disobey them?

To fully understand the situation and have a sample which could be generalized to most Islamic majority states, we examine levels of compliance in countries with high levels of Islamic fundamentalism (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and countries with controlled levels of Islamic fundamentalism (Egypt and Jordan). We strategically chose these states to represent the wide variety of Islamic majority states that have signed human rights treaties. Currently there are forty-eight countries that are identified as Islamic majority states. Of those, a number have signed the treaties with reservations, in most cases having to do with interpretation of specific definitions of human rights as accorded by the respective treaties.3 With this in mind, one must ask the question, why are Islamic majority states highly likely to disobey human rights treaties?

Shari'a: islamic Law in Use Today

Shari'a law or what is commonly known as Islamic Law is a complex matter of discussion with a number of deep theological intricacies and continues to be a matter that is of debate between Islamic clerics and religious scholars alike. While the topic is of great interest, Shari'a in itself is a topic that is simply too broad of a topic for this paper to study, and thus there must be a discussion of what type of understanding of Shari'a this paper operates under, mostly to generalize ...