Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:58:40.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Islam and the Modern Law of Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Majid Khadduri
Majid Khadduri*
Affiliation:
School of Advanced International Studies,The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Muslim states have shown in recent years eagerness to participate in international organizations and co-operate with other Powers to promote international peace and security. This is a significant phenomenon in the behavior of states whose traditional law of nations is so radically different from the modern law of nations and the principles implied in the United Nations Charter.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 1956 , pp. 358 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Khadduri, M., War and Peace in the Law of Islam 45 (Baltimore, 1955)Google Scholar. Cf. Hamidullah, M., Muslim Conduct of State 71 (3rd ed., Lahore, 1953)Google Scholar.

2 See Abdnr Rahim, Principles of Muhammadan Jurisprudence 52–53, 56–58 (Madras, 1911); Khadduri, Op. cit. 22–27.

3 See Hamidullah, Op. cit. 17–38.

4 For a discussion of the status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, see Tritton, A. S., The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects (London, 1930)Google Scholar ; and Khadduri, Op. cit. Ch. 17.

5 See Ibid. Ch. 5.

6 Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law, Ch. 16 (Cambridge, 1947)Google Scholar.

7 See M. Khadduri, op. cit. 65.

8 It has been maintained that, because the Ottoman sultans discouraged trade with Europe after they controlled the Eastern Mediterranean, the Portuguese and Spanish explorers sought new routes to the Orient which led them to new discoveries. For a critical discussion of this point, see Lybyer, A. H., “The Ottoman Turks and the Routes of Oriental Trade,” 30 English Historical Review 577–588 (1915)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 For the text of the treaty, see de Testa, Baron I., Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottomane, Vol. I, pp. 15–21 (Paris, 1864)Google Scholar; and Noradounghian, G., Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, Vol. I, pp. 83–87 (Paris, 1897)Google Scholar. For an English translation, see Sousa, Nasim , The Capitulatory Regime in Turkey 314–320 (Baltimore, 1933)Google Scholar.

10 The King of England preferred to sign a separate treaty with the Sultan in 1580, while the others failed to adhere to the treaty.

11 For the law governing the status of non-Muslims in Muslim territory (usually called dhimmis), see M. Khadduri, op. cit. Ch. 17.

12 See Sousa, Op. cit. 78–86.

13 See Hill, D. J., A History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, Vol. II, pp. 435, 439–440 (New York, 1906)Google Scholar; and Vaughan, D. M., Europe and the Turk 134–146 (Liverpool, 1954)Google Scholar.

14 Gentilis, De Jure Belli, Lib. I, C. 12 (1588). See also Walker, T. A., A History of the Law of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 254, 271–272 (Cambridge, 1899)Google Scholar.

15 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. II, C. 20 (1625). See also Walker, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 300, 306–307.

16 See Cheyney, E. P. “International Law under Queen Elizabeth,” 20 English Historical Review 660 (1905)Google Scholar.

17 Penn, W., Essay on the Present and Future Peace of Europe (London, 1693)Google Scholar.

18 Saint-Pierre, Abbé de, Project pour rendre la paix perpétuelle en Europe (Utrecht, 1713)Google Scholar. For a survey of the Utopian plans of peace, see Hemleben, S. J., Plans for World Peace Through Six Centuries (Chicago, 1943)Google Scholar.

19 The original, apparently lost, has been preserved in an Italian translation. For an English rendering of the Italian manuscript, see Henckels, Theodore, “Cardinal Alberoni’s Scheme for Reducing the Turkish Empire to the Obedience of Christian Princes,” 7 A.J.I.L. 83–107 (1913)Google Scholar.

20 For a full statement of this system, see Hid, 62–66.

21 For an account of the experiences of European envoys in Turkey, see the memoirs of the Ambassador of Austria, de Busbecq, in Constantinople, in Forster, C. T. and Daniell, F. H. B., The Life and Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Vol. I, pp. 176–177 (London, 1881)Google Scholar; and Queen Elizabeth’s Ambassador to Turkey, Sir John Finch, in Abbott, G. F., Under the Turk in Constantinople (London, 1920)Google Scholar.

22 See Wright, Q., “The Bombardment of Damascus,” 20 A.J.I.L. 266 (1926)Google Scholar; Mandates under the League of Nations 7–8 (1930).

23 The Hurtige Hane, High Court of Admiralty, 1801, 3 C. Rob. 324. See Scott, J. B. and Jaeger, W. H. E., Cases on International Law 62–64 (1937)Google Scholar.

24 The Madonna del Burso, High Court of the Admiralty, 1802, 4 C. Rob. 169. See Scott and Jaeger, op. cit. 65–66. In The Fortuna, 2 C. Rob. 92 (1803), Sir William Scott said: “Considering this case as merely between the British and Algerian claimants, I do not, at the same time, mean to apply to such claimants the exact rigour of the law of nations as understood and practised among the civilized states of Europe; it would be to try them by a law not familiar to any law or practice of theirs.…” See also The Kinders Kinder, High Court of Admiralty, 1799, 2 C. Rob. 88; and The Helena, High Court of Admiralty, 1801, 4 C. Rob. 3.

25 James Lorimer, Institutes of the Law of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 101–102, 123–124 (Edinburgh, 1883). In another work Lorimer rejects the ethical basis of Islam as suitable for a political system ( Lorimer, J., Studies National and International 132–147 [Edinburgh, 1890]Google Scholar).

26 See Holland, T. E., Lectures on International Law 38 (ed. Walker, London, 1933)Google Scholar; and Hall, W. E., International Law 48–49 (8th ed., Higgins, Oxford, 1924)Google Scholar.

27 See Smith, H. A., Great Britain and the Law of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 16–17 (London, 1932)Google Scholar.

28 Henry Wheaton, History of the Modern Law of Nations 555 (1845).

29 See Hall, W. E., Treatise on International Law 48 (ed. Pearce Higgins, Oxford, 1924)Google Scholar.

30 Wood, Hugh M., “The Treaty of Paris and Turkey’s Status in International Law,” 37 A.J.I.L. 262–274 (1943)Google Scholar.

31 In The S. S. Lotus (P.C.I.J., 1927), in a dissenting opinion by Judge Weiss, Turkey was not considered as a subject of the law of nations until the Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923).

32 Article 2.

33 See Brüel, Erik, International Straits, Vol. II, pp. 272–276 (London and Copenhagen, 1947).Google Scholar

34 For a comprehensive treatment of the various treaties governing the status of the Straits, see Shotwell, J. T. and Deák, F., Turkey at the Straits (New York, 1940)Google Scholar. See also Goriainov, Serge, La Question d’Orient a la Veille du Traité de Berlin (ed. B. Nolde, Paris, 1948)Google Scholar.

35 See Engelhardt, E., La Turquie et le Tanzimat (2 vols., Paris, 1882–84)Google Scholar ; Bailey, F. E., British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1942)Google Scholar.

36 See Abd al-Raziq, Ali, al-Islam wa Usui al-Hukm (Cairo, 1925)Google Scholar. For a discussion of Raziq’s theory, see Adams, C. C., Islam and Modernism in Egypt 259–267 (London, 1933)Google Scholar.

37 Sanhoury, A., Le Calif at: Son Evolution vers une Société des Nations Orientale (Paris, 1926)Google Scholar.

38 Ibid. 577 ff.

39 Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, Vol. 17, p. 91 (May, 1937).

40 See Rashid Rida, Shaykh, al-Khilafa (Cairo, 1922)Google Scholar; French translation by Laoust, H., Le Califat (Beyrouth, 1938)Google Scholar.

41 See Khallaf, Abd al-Wahhab, al-Siyasa al Shar’iyya 61–100 (Cairo, 1931)Google Scholar; Qutb, Sayyid, al-Adala al Ijtima’iyya 92, 94–95 (Cairo, 1945)Google Scholar; English translation by Hardie, J. B., entitled Social Justice in Islam 91, 93–94 (Washington, 1953)Google Scholar.

42 For a discussion by a Muslim writer advocating the competence of the U. N. General Assembly to deal with a Muslim country, see Dejany, A. W., “Competence of the General Assembly in the Tunisian-Moroccan Questions,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1953, pp. 53–59 Google Scholar.

43 See The Majalla, Article 39.

44 The present writer has drawn freely from his book, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955), and from his paper, “From Religious to National Law,” in Anshen, R. H. (ed.), World-Center: Mid-East (New York, 1956)Google Scholar. See also Wright, Q., “International Law and Ideologies,” 48 A.J.I.L. 616–626 (1954)Google Scholar ; and Kurt Wilk, “International Law and Ideological Conflict,” 45 ibid. 648–670 (1951).