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

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 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 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.

Human Rights Education (HRE) involves more than knowledge of rights and wrongs. It developed to enable individuals to act in an informed way to protect human rights or to prevent human rights viola-tions. HRE is therefore both empowering and restraining in order to protect human dignity. Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading practices is central to human dignity. This article starts from the universal and absolute prohibition of torture under international human rights law. While considering the contradictive relationship between war and torture the article focuses on the war against terror as defined by the US administration as new type of warfare requires a new think-ing in the law of war. From this point of departure the article elaborates the challenges to human rights education developing from the debate on the legalization of torture. While comparing the dis-cussion and application of law in Germany and U.S.A. the author argues for a more coherent interna-tional human rights protection system and for the establishment of a comprehensive accountability mechanism within international human rights law. Particular attention will be paid to artificial loopholes in international law which facilitate a lack of accountability. The article also focuses on the arguments for legalizing and legitimating torture so as to highlight how HRE can be employed to foster the norma-tive understanding of human rights such as the right to freedom from torture. By highlighting the moral, political, legal and social dimensions to human rights standards, it will be shown that HRE can help to close loopholes in international law and counteract arguments against the absolute prohibition of tor-ture.

The cultural content of international human rights standards has inspired much discussion and debate, but cross-cultural levels of compliance with these standards remains understudied. Using Samuel Huntington’s controversial ‘clash-of-civilizations’ thesis as a point of departure, this article analyzes whether human rights practices differ systematically across dominant cultural and religious traditions, with a focus on two sets of rights: bodily integrity and civil/political. Net of standard political, social, economic, and demographic factors, countries identified as Western countries and Japan generally have better rated practices than other countries, but differences are especially pronounced with respect to Buddhist, Catholic/Latin, Islamic, and Orthodox nations. These countries are closely scrutinized by watchdogs such as Amnesty International, which might account for their lower human rights scores. Variation in human rights scores also tends to be durable over time; in contrast with Huntington’s thesis, the end of the Cold War mattered little for cross-cultural differences in countries’ practices. Finally, cultural and religious effects are more pronounced for bodily integrity rights than for civil and political rights. All told, the analyses offer little support for the clash-of-civilizations approach, insofar as it predicts increased cultural conflict over putatively ‘Western’ human rights standards.

This research article aims to analyze the legal guarantees against mob justice, specifically in relation to blasphemy laws in Pakistan and international human rights standards. The study utilizes a qualitative research methodology by examining the constitutional guarantees against mob justice in Pakistan and the international human rights laws that prohibit vigilante actions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) are analyzed to understand the legal framework that prohibits mob justice and affirms individuals' rights to a fair trial. The study emphasizes the need to protect vulnerable groups, such as religious minorities, and examines how international human rights law can be used to combat mob justice. The research concludes that while Pakistan has a legal framework to prevent mob justice, gaps and challenges remain in implementing these laws. Therefore, greater awareness of legal rights and protections against mob violence and upholding the rule of law is needed to promote respect for human rights. The study suggests enforcing and upholding legal safeguards against mob justice to protect individuals' rights and combat mob violence in Pakistan.

Introduction: The issue of the relationship between international law and national legal policies in developing countries, especially in the context of human rights (HAM), is increasingly relevant in contemporary international law studies. Developing countries often face significant challenges in integrating international human rights standards into their domestic legal systems.Purposes of the Research: This study aims to analyze the influence of international law on national legal policies in developing countries in the context of human rights.Methods of the Research: The method used in this study is the normative legal research method with a literature study approach, which includes an analysis of various national laws and international legal instruments related to human rights. In addition, this study also refers to the results of academic studies, reports from international human rights institutions, and official documents from organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the National Human Rights Commission. This approach provides a more comprehensive picture of the implementation of international human rights standards in developing countries.Results Main Findings of the Research: The results main findings of the study show that although many developing countries have ratified various international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, their implementation is often hampered by various domestic factors. Inconsistencies between international obligations and national conditions are major obstacles, exacerbated by political instability, weak state institutions, limited resources, and tensions between international norms and local cultures. In addition, political resistance to the implementation of international human rights policies is also a significant challenge, especially in countries that prioritize political or economic interests over commitment to global human rights standards.

Reviewed by: Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards Jennifer Sherer Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards. By Lance Compa. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell University Press, 2004. 220 pp. $16.95 paper. Unfair Advantage documents the range of obstacles U.S. workers face to the full exercise of their rights of free association. Cornell University Press's publication of this updated version of Lance Compa's report (originally published by Human Rights Watch in 2000) is a promising sign that Unfair Advantage has already generated significant new attention to the shortcomings of U.S. labor law and that it will continue to reach a well-deserved wider audience. Compa's study assesses two types of problems with U.S. labor law. First, Unfair Advantage analyzes where existing laws fall short of meeting recognized human rights standards as embodied in International Labor Organization conventions and other international instruments (for example, by excluding large classes of workers from coverage or allowing permanent striker replacement). Second, it documents problems with enforcement of existing laws, illustrating how procedural delays and weak remedies fail to protect workers' rights to free association and collective bargaining. Following a standard Human Rights Watch format, Unfair Advantage illustrates the need for change with dozens of case studies based on legal research and extensive worker interviews. Individually, each case study provides a unique record of workers' first-hand experiences with labor law as applied to their own workplaces and the often life-changing effects of their organizing experiences. Together, the case studies reveal patterns of employer exploitation enabled by weak, exclusionary, or unenforceable labor laws. As one nursing- home worker fired for organizing comments, "The law gives you something with one hand then takes it away with the other hand." Multiple case studies [End Page 113] also provide powerful examples of systematic exploitation of immigrant workers (both documented and not) and of workers employed through workfare programs, prison work programs, or temporary agencies, where labor law loopholes combine with employer abuses to block freedom of association. The 2004 edition of Unfair Advantage includes a new introduction updating several of the original case studies and a conclusion reflecting on the report's impact to date. Compa's new conclusion provides an overview of the tensions remaining between the economic foundation of U.S. labor law and the "rights-based" approaches taken in international law. He suggests a human rights approach can help "begin a process of change" in the organizing climate and, ultimately, in the labor law of the United States. Compa has continued to further dialogue between the U.S. labor movement and human rights communities, with another Human Rights Watch report being published in 2004 entitled Blood Sweat, and Fear: Workers' Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants. Certainly Unfair Advantage should be required reading in labor studies courses and in law schools. Case study sections especially provide useful resources for educators at all levels, including those who work in popular or public education settings. Workers' stories included in Unfair Advantage can help provide students, union members, and public audiences with new understandings of the obstacles workers routinely face when attempting to organize—and of the pressing need to bring U.S. laws and enforcement mechanisms in line with fundamental workers' rights standards. Jennifer Sherer University of Iowa Copyright © 2005 the West Virginia University Press, for the United Association for Labor Studies

Since the enactment of the Constitution of Japan in 1946, the universal nature of human rights has been repeatedly approved by the legal academy, profession and the government authorities. Binding international human rights law is part of the domestic legal order and enjoys a higher status inferior only to the Constitution. Nevertheless, the promise of universal human rights is yet to be fulfilled officially and among ordinary citizens. Like many other countries in the world, there still appears a long way to go in making the faithful application of human rights obligations a reality. Notably, the judicial elite show indifference if not antagonism to interpretation of human rights effectuated at the universal level, thus inducing a number of recommendations from treaty bodies to the effect that international human rights law should be part of professional training. It is critically important that the local populace feel a sense of ownership of human rights law, a condition that might paradoxically come into being through a diametric way of thinking that challenges the very validity of human rights.

Criminal policy must confront the dilemma between the protection of human rights and ensuring effective crime control. In CEE countries, criminal policy has been seen as closely connected with human rights; the previous one-party system by itself produced systemic human rights violations, which was not the case in older democracies. In these states, criminal policy thus shows varying levels of respect for human rights in different legislative trends. In the 1990s, the prevailing models supported effectiveness as the primary aim of crime control. It seems that the human rights agenda in the CEE countries had arrived at a time when in the older democracies its mobilizing strength had already been slowing down. The events on 11 September 2001 and their aftermath represented a dramatic turning point: the changed attitudes and the perceptible lowering of human rights standards also dealt a terrible blow to crime policy in CEE countries. In a situation like the one criminal policy is facing today, there are two possible scenarios on the future development of crime policy, as well as the societies at large: one leads in an ever more punitive direction, while the other attempts to reconcile effective crime control with the proper respect for human rights.

Human Rights are complex social phenomenon that includes political, legal, cultural and economic dimensions and escapes a simple definition. Concise retrospective of human rights documents of historic value as well as natural law doctrine was used as a frame for determination of political importance and function of human rights. Natural law definition of human rights was completed by positivist critique. Human rights are seen as a legal expression of interactions of individual needs and expectations on the one hand, and readiness and capabilities of a state to satisfy these needs and expectations and to create social framework for their satisfaction on the other. The relationship between human rights and culture was discussed. A thesis on equality of human rights in all different jurisdictions was qualified by recognition of certain space - a margin of appreciation - left to states for adaptation of international standards of human rights to local culture in a process of implementation of abstract and general provisions of human right treaties in domestic law. An appearance of international organizations that interfere in human rights as well as an increase of extraterritorial effects of state activities is a challenge to classic legal understanding of a human right as the legal relationship between a state and individuals under its territorial jurisdiction. International humanitarian law protects certain human rights of individual outside territorial jurisdiction of states in war. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has started to consider extraterritorial effects of state activities in respect of economic, social and cultural rights. International environmental law obliges states to take care of extraterritorial effects of activities undertaken under their jurisdictions. The time has come for recognition of an obligation of a state to respect human rights of individuals outside its territorial jurisdiction who are affected by its extraterritorial activities or by extraterritorial effects of activities undertaken on its territory. It seems that an obligation of international organization to respect human rights of individual affected by its acts is not disputable.

The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the protection of human dignity and the prevention of discrimination from the perspective of Islam and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This study attempts to clarify the similarities and differences between these two systems and examine the principles of each system for the protection of human dignity and rights. This study compared the principles of Islam and IHL through an analytical and comparative method. International documents, Islamic sources (Quran and Hadith) and IHL were used. This study is based on the analysis and comparison of documents. The results of the study show that both Islam and IHL emphasize the protection of human dignity and anti-discrimination laws. Islam has strongly opposed any form of discrimination based on its principles, while IHL supports these principles through international conventions. Islam and IHL demonstrate that human dignity must be protected for all human beings and that all forms of discrimination must be eliminated. Both systems share a fundamental principle of equal rights, justice, and respect for human dignity. A comparison of these systems shows that there is broad international support for these principles. Governments and international organizations should enhance the coherence between Islam and IHL to ensure the broad protection of human rights. Awareness of human dignity and the prevention of discrimination should be raised through educational programs. There is a need to develop laws at the international level to protect human rights based on the principles of Islam.

The use of lethal drones by the United States (US) marks a paradox insofar as the US government claims that these strikes respect human rights, while the human rights community – including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – raise serious concerns that challenge this claim. Would reconciling these seemingly mutually exclusive human rights narratives regarding drone use lead to the formation of a more robust regime that would provide greater respect for human rights than in the current state of legal and moral ambiguity? In order to explore this question, we examine the evolution of these conflicting discourses through three key frames of legitimation – strategic, legal and normative. We argue that the US government has moved from a strategic-legal framework characterised by a focus on strategic objectives and a permissive view of international humanitarian law to a legal-normative discourse that, by incorporating the principles of just war theory, has restrained the strategic scope of the drone programme while reinforcing the legitimacy of international humanitarian law as the paradigm of choice. Comparatively, we assert that the human rights community has pursued a human rights-centric approach that rejects the more permissive standards of an international humanitarian law-centric legal paradigm, while pushing a normative agenda that seeks to enhance respect for human rights under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law. This includes rejecting the US interpretation of just war principles and appealing to a broader understanding of the right to life norm. Taking these ‘right to life’ considerations seriously raises concerns about whether drones can ever satisfy human rights. In the conclusion, we explore how combining certain elements of these narratives may contribute to an emerging norm on drone use.

This article tries to examine John Rawls’ theories of war and nuclear weapons especially from the perspective of international law. Rawls's theory of war is based on the just war theory of Western tradition. It rejects realism and does not adopt pacifism. Rawls's theory of jus ad bellum is similar to the position of current international law in that it recognizes a war of self-defense and exceptionally a war of humanitarian intervention. HIs theory of jus in bello largely reflects the principles of existing International Humanitarian Law(IHL), such as the distinction between combatants and civilians, protection of human rights, and restrictions on military necessity. However, Rawls deviates from international humanitarian law in that it permits military action against civilians in the case of the so-called supreme emergency. Regarding nuclear weapons, it differs from the existing International Court of Justice (ICJ) theory of nuclear permitting by permitting nuclear weapons only to well-ordered peoples and presenting human rights standards for nuclear use. In addition, by evaluating the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings as great wrongs, it presents a precedent in international humanitarian law for the use of nuclear weapons. The official position of the United States regarding the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings was that it was a justifiable measure to end the war early. However, Rawls rejects the U.S. government's arguments and says that the atomic bombing was a representative case of the failure of so-called 'statesmanship'. This article attempted to support Rawls's perspective from the perspective of international humanitarian law. The claim that the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings were intended to reduce the casualties of U.S. soldiers does not comply with the principle of military necessity under international humanitarian law. Additionally, the claim that it was an inevitable choice to reduce the damage to Japanese civilians that would result from a prolonged war is not valid in that there was room for a third option to end the war. The dropping of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombs reflected America's political interest for the victory of unconditional surrender and ending the war before Russia (the former Soviet Union) entered the war. This did not comply with the principles of military necessity or humanitarian necessity of international humanitarian law.

In the context of full-scale armed aggression against Ukraine, the issue of torture is becoming particularly acute. The use of torture in occupied territories, in places of detention, and against civilians and prisoners of war is not only a gross violation of human rights, but also a serious war crime. The classification of such acts is complicated by the specifics of martial law, the multiplicity of possible criminal offenses, and the need to simultaneously apply the norms of national criminal law and international humanitarian law. The lack of consistency in legislative norms, the absence of uniform judicial practice, and the need to comply with international human rights standards necessitate a scientific analysis of this issue. The correct legal classification of torture determines not only the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, but also the restoration of justice for the victims and the formation of an evidence base for international courts. The article examines the problem of qualifying torture in conditions of martial law and armed conflict, which is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary challenges related to military aggression against Ukraine. It analyzes the norms of national criminal legislation, international legal acts, and the practice of international judicial institutions regarding the definition of torture, its composition, and characteristics. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between torture and war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the rules of war. The problems of distinguishing torture from other crimes against human life, health, and honor are considered, as well as the peculiarities of qualification, taking into account martial law as a qualifying circumstance. The need to improve criminal law mechanisms for bringing to justice those who commit torture in armed conflict and to bring national practice into line with international human rights standards is justified. Keywords: torture, war crime, martial law, international law, criminal legislation of Ukraine.