Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK: is legal pluralism nothing more than a necessary political fiction?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SIT.2014.025Keywords
Sharia courts Beth Din courts, domestic violenceAbstract
Since 2008, sharia courts were postulated that they may be positive for the English law and for English justice in general, to facilitate for a more pluralist legal system in which people can choose which law they wish to comply with, religious or English one. This idea was recognized as very controversial. Anyway the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, supposed to operate within a civil jurisdiction, was established already in 2007. MAT is treated as any other alternate dispute resolution tribunal, what means that parties can consent to have their disputes decided by a third party and that these decisions are recognized in an English court. It is very important that abuse has, until fairly recently, often been seen as a matter of private rather than public law within the English system and this delineation between public and private family matters has been maintained by Muslim law to a large extent. The concern raised by the use of private arbitration in the field of domestic violence is that it undermines the role of the state to prosecute offences which a society find particularly abhorrent. A possible safeguard for victims of domestic violence in the face of Sharia or Jewish the Beth Din jurisdiction is the requirement of independent legal advice for both parties before acquiescing to Sharia as the Beth Din.
References
Bano S., Inpursuit of religious and legal diversity: a response to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the “Sharia debate” in Britain, “Ecclesiastical Law Journal” 2008, vol. 10.
Berkovits B., Beth Din arbitration and the Human Rights Act, section 6., “Arbitration” 2005, vol. 71.
Brechen J., A study of the use of Sharia law in religious arbitration in the United Kingdom and the concerns that this raises for human rights, “Ecclesiastical Law Journal”2013, vol. 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0956618X13000434.
Buchler A., Islamic Family Law in Europe? From Dichotomies to Discourse: Or, Beyond Cultural or Religious Identity in Family Law, “International Journal of Law in Context” 2012, vol. 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S1744552312000043.
Enright M.,Preferring the stranger? Towards an Irish approach to Muslim divorce practice, “Irish Jurist” 2013, vol. 49.
Ishtiaq A., Western and Muslim perceptions of universal human rights, “Afrika Focus” 1994, vol. 10.
Kamali A., The Influence of Sharia Norms on Dispute Settlement and International Law: the International Court of Justice, Room for Accommodation?, Westlaw 2009.
Madera A., Juridical bonds of marriage for Jewish and Islamic women, “Ecclesiastical Law Journal” 2009, vol. 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0956618X0900163X.
Vakulenko A., Liberalism, civilisation and the (non)oxymoronic limits of tolerance, “International Journal of Law in Context” 2007, vol. 11, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1744552307004065.
Williams R., Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Perspective, “Ecclesiastical Journal” 2008, vol. 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0956 618X08001403.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 967
Number of citations: 0