Both because Islam arose later than Christianity and because of its present largely negative reputation, this chapter is structured somewhat differently from its predecessors. A first section looks at its historical relations with culture, stressing first positive aspects and then the distortions noted by Edward Said and his followers, as well as the more general, detrimental effect of western imperialism. The second section then explores historical restraints upon fundamentalism; first in the four Sunni schools through analogy, abrogation and chains of transmission. Mystical Sufism is then portrayed as an unjustifiably marginalised alternative. The final section then looks at contemporary options, taking first modern Muslim contextualisation before noting possible reasons why Christians could legitimately endorse Mohammad’s modification of earlier biblical stories. The variety of its present forms demonstrates the extent to which it can be seen to be pulled in opposing directions, hope in openness to new ideas restrained by warning pressures to ossify its past.

Chapter 5 examines how considerations of coherence manifest in the use of analogical reasoning by investor-state tribunals. In particular, it demonstrates through concrete examples and case studies that the persuasiveness and correctness of an arbitral award based on analogical reasoning depends on the degree of its internal coherence. It is argued that coherence in an analogical inference manifests in two ways. Firstly, in a methodological sense, coherence manifests itself in the way the adjudicator frames the legal question at issue and in the degree to which the analogy, as drawn, satisfies the elements of similarity, structural parallels, and purposiveness. Secondly, in a substantive sense, coherence manifests itself in the normative contextualisation of the legal question and in the moral appeal of the proposed interpretation derived from the analogy.

The International Law Commission has described the operation of the VCLT rule of interpretation as a ‘crucible’, whereby it is the combination of the interpretative principles contained in the VCLT rule that in each case yields the meaning of treaty provisions. Taking that view as its starting point, Chapter 4 points out that different interpretative VCLT principles may be assigned different weights in different cases, depending on the drafters’ constructed intention followed by the adjudicator in each case. The underlying idea, therefore, is that all these interpretative principles must hang together well and must be combined in a way that makes sense in the context of each case. This is a sign that considerations of coherence are apposite in the operation of the VCLT rule, acting as reasons that justify the above combination in each case and ultimately account for the outcome’s persuasiveness. In the process, the chapter identifies two key coherence-related processes: framing and normative contextualisation

The responsibility for implementing and complying with international standards rests firmly with states. However, post-conflict states often lack resources and may also face significant socio-political challenges. Chapter 3 explores whether international child rights standards make any allowances for the context in which they are to be implemented, reviewing the ‘escape’ route of derogations, considering whether the economic, social and cultural context may be taken into account, and addressing textual flexibility. It also expounds factors, including resources and public opinion, that might affect the operationalisation of juvenile justice standards in particular. The state does not, however, operate in a vacuum. There is a range of international mechanisms that promote implementation of, and compliance with, human rights. This chapter reviews these mechanisms as they relate to children’s rights, examining in particular the Committee on the Rights of the Child established by the CRC to monitor state compliance with the treaty, before focusing in some detail on UNICEF. The chapter provides an overview of UNICEF’s institutional nature, its relationship with the CRC and its stance on juvenile justice, all of which are key to understanding UNICEF’s involvement in Rwanda and its approach to child génocidaires.