Archbishop Williams and Sharia Courts

[Steven Jamar]

This is an interesting issue that I am currently studying on a  
comparative basis -- particularly in parts of Africa where you can  
have all sorts of personal law (family and inheritance mostly)  
determined by different systems.  In Mauritania you can have the  
general civil law, Islamic law, pastoral customary law, or nomadic  
customary law control.

South Africa is struggling with this now as well with its general  
civil law, a large population that is Muslim, and various indigenous  
practices.

I plan a trip to South Africa in 2010 to study this, in between world  
cup games . . .   :)


Steve

On Feb 7, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Vance R. Koven wrote:

> I love pregnant controversies like this. The Archbishop of  
> Canterbury has endorsed the idea of allowing, to some undefined  
> extent, separate legal systems apply to different religious and  
> cultural groups in Britain, notably Sharia law for Muslims.
>
> News story here:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
>
> While the UK, like the US, supports parties' ability to stipulate  
> that a particular dispute may be submitted to religious courts so  
> long as they consent and there are no other social externalities,  
> to what extent can a constitutionally bound polity permit such  
> things if not all parties consent, or if a party withdraws consent?  
> And to what extent should secular courts recognize the judgments of  
> religious courts when the outcomes transgress certain public  
> policies of the state? And to what extent should the parties'  
> agreement to apply religious law govern an action in a secular  
> court (and if it's like a choice-of-law clause in a contract, how  
> is the applicable law "proven")?
>
> One tends to think about the deference paid to commercial  
> arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, but even there a  
> court need not enforce an award that contravenes public policy, and  
> there are some rather fine distinctions drawn about when a court  
> will strike an arbitration clause. At the same time, courts have  
> permitted arbitrators to hear and decide claims under regulatory  
> statutes like the antitrust laws and the securities laws.
>
> Without a written constitution, it may be difficult to ascertain  
> how far such deference (in the case of religious courts) could go  
> in the UK. Are there limits in the US beyond the limits to which  
> parties can make contracts?
>
> Vance
>
> -- 
> Vance R. Koven
> Boston, MA USA
> vrkoven at world.std.com
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                          http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life:  It  
goes on."

Robert Frost


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080207/4323e1dd/attachment.htm