Brief Description
Based on author's thesis (doctoral - University of Hull, England, 2012) issued under title: Islamic diplomatic law and international diplomatic law.
Learn More about the Book
This book, in its effort to formulate compatibility between Islamic law and the principles of international diplomatic law, argues that the need to harmonize the two legal systems and have a thorough cross-cultural understanding amongst nations generally with a view to enhancing unfettered diplomatic cooperation should be of paramount priority.
On the Back Cover
The book explores the compatibility of Islamic law and international diplomatic law, aiming to maximize diplomatic protection in Muslim states by invoking Islamic law in support of international diplomatic law at national level. The author investigates the concept of diplomatic immunities and privileges under Islamic law and modern international law in theory and practice. The core of the book engages theoretical analyses of the two legal systems with a view to ascertaining the presence of any compatibility or tension in their respective principles on diplomatic law and then, examines the practices of some Muslim states within the context of that theoretical analysis. Ismail proposes that two legal systems are compatible and can be harmonized to enhance the concept of diplomatic immunities and privileges in Muslim states. The book facilitates a better understanding of the relationship that exists between Islamic diplomatic law and international diplomatic law with the hope to ultimately maximize diplomatic protection by clarifying and developing Islamic diplomatic law, which may eventually complement international diplomatic law.
About the Book
The book explores the compatibility of Islamic law and international diplomatic law, aiming to maximize diplomatic protection in Muslim states by invoking Islamic law in support of international diplomatic law at national level. The author investigates the concept of diplomatic immunities and privileges under Islamic law and modern international law in theory and practice. The core of the book engages theoretical analyses of the two legal systems with a view to ascertaining the presence of any compatibility or tension in their respective principles on diplomatic law and then, examines the practices of some Muslim states within the context of that theoretical analysis. Ismail proposes that two legal systems are compatible and can be harmonized to enhance the concept of diplomatic immunities and privileges in Muslim states. The book facilitates a better understanding of the relationship that exists between Islamic diplomatic law and international diplomatic law with the hope to ultimately maximize diplomatic protection by clarifying and developing Islamic diplomatic law, which may eventually complement international diplomatic law.
Review Quotes
1.
Robert P. Barnidge, Webster University
I am happy to endorse this book proposal for publication. It promises to make an important and original contribution to the literature. For the most part, the draft is well-written and well-organized, but there should definitely be a close combing of it for ease of reading.
If one considers Islamic diplomatic law alone, there is not much competition for this work. There would be some competition with books on international diplomatic law (Eileen Denza, etc.), but again, the niche of the proposed book would be the bridging of Islamic and international law on diplomatic law.
Structure, Organization, and Presentation
'apparent hypothesis of the book' (Book Proposal 2): 'apparent' (Book Proposal 2)?
'very much compatible' (Book Proposal 2): overplaying one's hand? It seems difficult/fortuitous to imagine any two legal regimes that are precisely the same/compatible? Is the 'very much compatible' (Book Proposal 2) statement contradicted by the 'which may eventually' (Book Proposal 2) statement at the end of this, which seems to suggest that this is a process of complementing that has not yet been achieved.
While I was only able to read draft Chapter 4 and while some of the suggested readings/references below might indeed be contained in other chapters, overall, I would suggest that the work bear in mind that:
-A few commentaries to the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties have been published in recent years. The work would benefit from reference to these.
-It would be useful to track down and discuss and analyze Islamic law-related arguments that Muslim majority States might have made (i.e., the travaux preparatoires) leading up to the adoption of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and the 1976 Convention of the Immunities and Privileges of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
-Does the work engage with the International Law Commission's work on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006). Since the work seeks to show how Islamic diplomatic law and international diplomatic law are complementary, and to harmonize these two legal regimes, engaging with the ILC's Fragmentation project would only strengthen the work. The draft chapter that was sent to me did not refer to the Fragmentation project. Also, with respect to section 1.3, see Surabhi Ranganathan's Strategically-Created Treaty Conflicts and the Politics of International Law 8-13 (2014) for some potentially useful analogies with respect to interpretation.
Why does Chapter 2 choose the specific civilizations that it does? What methodology has been used to inform this decision? Why not adopt the civilizational model in Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1998), which includes other civilizations that Dr. Adisa does not cover? From an organizational perspective, why not have Chapter 2 include a non-Islamic civilizations section that fairly generally discusses the contributions of non-Islamic civilizations (though has exhaustive footnotes to guide the reader), and then Chapter 2 could then continue on to section 2.3.6? Is there anything of relevance from RP Anand for the Indian Civilization section? Would 'Indian Civilisation' be more properly termed 'Hindu Civilisation'?
The order of the subsections in sections 3.3 and following should precisely map onto article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. If Chapter 3 does not already do so, it might be useful for it to refer to The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Andreas Zimmermann et al. eds., 2012).
With respect to the methodology of customary international law, citations to the International Court of Justice's 2012 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) judgment and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Appeals Chamber's 2011 Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging (STL-11-01/I/AC/R176bis) would be helpful (if not already in the manuscript).
What methodology does Chapter 5 adopt in choosing the specific examples of Muslim State practice that it does?
The book would probably benefit from reference to: Katja LH Samuel, The OIC, the UN, and Counter-Terrorism Law-Making: Conflicting or Cooperative Legal Orders (2013); Clark B Lombardi, Islamic Law in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: An Analysis, 8(1) Chicago Journal of International Law 85 (2007); and M Cherif Bassiouni, Evolving Approaches to Jihad: From Self-Defense to Revolutionary and Regime-Change Political Violence, 8(1) Chicago Journal of International Law 119 (2007). Also, generally, see bibliography at: https: //insct.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Islam_IHL_Workshop_ePacket.pdf .
'Macroscopic' strikes me as a bit clunky as part of the title for Chapter 4.
p. 12 of Chapter 4/top: wait until later in this chapter to make this conclusion? Is there no incompatibility/difference?
'[diplomatic]' (Chapter 4 50): why the brackets?
Section 4.4.4.3: this section is a bit thin.
Section 4.4.4.5: the first sentence in this section: footnotes? This section is a bit thin.
"
2.
'Dr. Ismail shows how Islamic law and international diplomatic law are mutually reinforcing and largely complementary. Where there is divergence, there can be harmonization: the nature of his project is conversation, not conflict. Dr. Ismail has produced a rigorous work that blends theoretical inquiry and examples from Muslim State practice. This is an important contribution to the existing scholarship that, it is hoped, will enhance compliance in the area of diplomatic privileges and immunities.' - Robert P. Barnidge, Jr., Lecturer and Coordinator of International Relations, Department of History, Politics, and International Relations, Webster University, USA
