Archbishop Williams and Sharia Courts

[Volokh, Eugene]

	Wouldn't the current treatment of prenuptial agreements offer a
useful analogy?  (I've heard that English courts generally haven't
recognized them, and that would be an analogy, too, but let's assume
that they are recognized.)  Such agreements, as I understand it, are
generally enforceable, even against a spouse who changes his or her
minds, and notwithstanding the possible unfairness to either party.  On
the other hand, as I understand it there are some substantive minimums
below which the prenuptial agreement's provisions can't go, and there
are procedural rules, too.  If such secular agreements are allowed, it
seems to me religious ones should be as well, and on much the same
terms.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:pfink at albanylaw.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:23 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Archbishop Williams and Sharia Courts
> 
> the latter might make some sense, but might also leave some 
> people -- women especially -- deprived of civil rights; 
> furthermore, what happens to someone who leaves the faith?
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>      and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494
> 
> 518-445-3386
> pfink at albanylaw.edu
> >>> VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu 02/07/08 8:04 PM >>>
>     Is the Archbishop talking about different legal rules for 
> different communities selected by government decision, or 
> just about binding arbitration (in whatever system, religious 
> or otherwise, of their
> choice) for those parties who so agree by contract?  I had 
> assumed it was the latter, but maybe I'm mistaken.
>  
>     Eugene
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> 	Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:58 PM
> 	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> 	Subject: Re: Archbishop Williams and Sharia Courts
> 	
> 	
> 	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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>