Volume 5, Issue 1

Saudi Arabia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). However, it has made general reservations to the effect that where there is a conflict between a Convention article and Islamic Law principles, Islamic Law shall have precedence. The family law rights of women and children in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been criticised for not reaching the standards set by CEDAW and CRC. This article looks at the internationally set standards of these rights and compares them with the Family Law rules of Islamic Law as applied in Saudi Arabia. The applications in Saudi Arabia are then examined by looking at certain practices, case judgments and recent developments in the country in this field. Amongst these developments are the first case in which a Saudi judge annuls a child's marriage, the first death sentence declared on a father who abused his daughter causing her death, and the Saudi Divorce Initiative which aims to educate women and call for the protection of their rights during marriage and after its dissolution. The article stresses that despite the many improvements, there remains a need for codifying the Islamic Law of Personal Status in Saudi Arabia as this measure would be the basis that defines and protects the rights of women and children in Family Law.

The Islamic Republic of Iran punishes homosexuality with death but it actively recognizes transsexuality, and partially funds sex change operations. This article aims to examine how this seemingly progressive stance on transsexuality is connected to the IRI's larger oppressive apparatus of gender. It will first provide an overview of the cultural politics of gender and sexuality under the Islamic Republic's rule, and will then discuss the confluence of religious and medical literatures that led the Islamic Republic to adopt its new discourse on transsexuality despite – or perhaps rather because of – its sex/gender politics. The article does not deny that this emerging discourse has been somewhat empowering for those transsexuals who genuinely desire surgical transformation. But empowering as it might have been for such transsexuals, the emerging discourse is still deeply troubling since it systematically regards homosexuality and more generally any sexual or gender non-conformity as unintelligible, perverse, and punishable by law, except for those willing to transform their "wrong bodies." The article will, therefore, demonstrate that the IRI's permission of transsexuality and sex change operations is motivated by a goal that is more about assimilating gender atypical individuals into the heteronormative order than about broadening horizons for sex/gender possibilities. The article ends by discussing how this discourse is making non-surgical trans/multi-gendered identity illegible and illegitimate not only as a publicly recognized possibility, but also with regard to transpersons' own self-perception and self-constitution of their gender and sexual subjectivity.

There are barriers of perception between Sudanese Muslims for whom the sharia is a source of authority and identity and others who see it as an oppressive means of dominating Sudan's minority populations. I make a distinction between process and substance in law, and show that a flawed process has contributed to a perception of international law as an instrument of powerful states, which has obscured its legislative and procedural usefulness to the Sudan as a member of the United Nations. Similarly a distortion of due process in Sudan's sharia has created a substance derived from the legacy of medieval Arabia rather than applied legal methodology. One consequence of this is that Sudan's Civil Wars have been given the attributes of offensive jihad against its diverse non-Muslim populations. I argue that offensive jihad was a legal construction designed to meet the challenges of medieval Arab society, with little basis in the fundamental sources of Islamic law or in contemporary legal methodology. I advocate a return to due process as a partial solution to the impasse between Muslim and non-Muslim identities in the Sudan, and show how international law can be improved by accommodating other legal traditions.

The aim of this paper is to investigate how different liberal theories can be applied in order to explain and assess honour suicide cases in the Batman area of Turkey. In the first section of the study, the general framework of these theories and their viewpoints regarding gender inequality in a multicultural world will be analyzed. The second section will explain socio-economic facts about Turkey, its Southeastern region and the Batman area. The last section will outline how these theories are inadequate in explaining and solving the Honour-Suicide problem in Batman and why an alternative approach must be taken in order to assess this case.

This paper explores the difficulties of implementing international human rights standards in post conflict states, particularly in Islamic States, using Afghanistan as a case study. The paper will submit that imposing international human rights law with a ‘top down' approach is ineffective, using the example of the western-style Afghan constitution which contains many human rights protections, such as freedom of religion, that cannot be realized in contemporary Afghan society. It will be argued that a more transparent, consultative and long-term approach to human rights implementation should be taken in post conflict situations, if ‘human rights' is to be more than a catch phrase for membership of the international community.