Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.757323
Title: The legitimacy and compatibility of use of force (jus ad bellum) in public international law and Islamic international law
Author: Sabuj, Mohammad Zakaria
ISNI:       0000 0004 7430 1412
Awarding Body: Northumbria University
Current Institution: Northumbria University
Date of Award: 2018
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Despite the general prohibition of using inter-state force imposed by Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, force has been used under the auspices of self-defence, collective security and humanitarian crises. Such use of force has brought challenges to international law regarding its existence and efficacy. Although no state has denied the validity of such prohibition, many attempts have been made to legitimise use of such force on different grounds, namely exception, expansion and explanation. Unlike Public international law, Islamic law of Nations (Siyar) does not provide for a general prohibition of use of force but recognises circumstances in which such force can be legitimately used. The compatibility of these conflicting provisions of legitimate inter-state use of force offered by these two systems are significant for the prevention of aggressive use of force. The assessment of legitimacy of these conflicting provisions shall reveal where the legitimacy lies - is it in Islamic international law or Public international law or both or none of them? The results of the legitimacy assessment demonstrate that these two systems could sit in plural fashion by complementing each other’s legitimacy-deficits. However, the legitimacy and compatibility of Public international law and Islamic international law significantly depend on the development of an underlying pluralistic legal framework of international law with a healthy dose of legitimacy. Therefore, a comparative analysis of these two systems reveals the extent to which a complementary legal framework could be compatible and legitimate. The comparative analysis of the legitimacy of use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law includes examination of classical and contemporary sources to identify the existing legitimacy deficits of the two systems. The analysis follows on an inquiry into the the compatibility of these potentially two conflicting legal systems to complement each other. In this regard, the research expands on another inquiry into how the existing legitimacy deficits of the two systems could be overcome. Generally, this thesis seeks to address three fundamental and interrelated research questions, namely - (1) To what extent use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law is legitimate? (2) How the legitimacy deficits of Public international law and Islamic international law could be overcome? (3) Whether use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law can be compatible in modern world to secure higher degree of legitimacy?
Supervisor: Badar, Mohamed ; McConnell, Lee Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.757323  DOI: Not available
Keywords: M200 Law by Topic
Share: