Suchergebnisse

This research deals with the case in which the creditor claims the loan after the expiration date. It seeks to compare between the Civil Transactions Code of Oman and the Egyptian Civil Code. The paper argues that the Civil Transactions Code of Oman is influenced by the Islamic legal thought; while the Egyptian is influenced more by the Latin legal thought. The Islamic influnce in Oman can be seen at the provision that allows the legal process after the expiration date. The creditor may bring his case to the court to sue the debtor. While the Latin influnce in Egypt can be found on the rule that does not allow the legal process after the expiration date. The creditor loses his right when he does not claim the debt during the agreed period.[Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan masa kedaluwarsa bagi kreditor untuk mengklaim kredit dari debitur. Hukum Perdata Oman yang dipengaruhi oleh hukum fikih menetapkan bahwa dalam kasus ini, gugatan tidak dapat diterima dan debitur diizinkan untuk menolak gugatan terhadap dirinya oleh kreditur ketika gugatan tersebut diajukan setelah berakhirnya jangka waktu klaim. Sementara itu, Hukum Perdata Mesir yang dipengaruhi pemikiran hukum Latin, mengambil prinsip pembatasan dan pengguguran kewajiban jika kreditur tidak menagih pinjamannya dalam jangka waktu tertentu. Berdasarkan data tersebut, jelas bahwa dua undang-undang ini berbeda dalam mengatur waktu kedaluwarsanya suatu kasus hukum. Hukum yang pertama memberikan hak kepada debitur untuk menuntut bahwa pengadilan tidak perlu menerima gugatan kasus ini karena telah kedaluwarsa. Sementara itu, hukum kedua memungkinkan debitur untuk mematuhi jatuhnya hak klaim karena berakhirnya waktu dan ini bertentangan dengan prinsip hukum Islam, yang mengatur tidak adanya hak yang gugur tanpa peduli berapa lama waktunya, tetapi hanya membatasi kasus ini pada tidak perlunya menerima gugatan hak yang pemilik klaim dalam jangka waktu yang lama. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa sistem yang berasal dari hukum Islam lebih baik dari sistem yang berasal dari yurisprudensi Latin dan bahwa legislator pemerintah Oman tidak mengambil semua aturan dari para ahli hukum Islam.]

AbstractThe Islamic legal enterprise forms an inherently plural system that can appear puzzling to commentators looking for faithfulness to principle or precedent. When one looks at it, instead, as an ongoing search for correspondence between divine guidance, rooted in the foundational sources of Islam, and the singularity of concrete circumstances, Islamic law is revealed as a practice of discernment against the grain of the particular. This article unfolds this approach to understanding Islamic law by entering the conversation where it is currently most heated, namely in connection with the development of Islamic financial products. A case study of takāful regulation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) helps substantiate the import of our proposal for attuning to the voice of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), in the face of contemporary questions arising from the design of financial products in correspondence with the Sharī'ah.

This note surveys the roots of a phenomenon called "conflict of international agreements", which forms a distinctive source of legal uncertainty in trans-border disputes, with a particularly high incidence in the field of air law. The authors suggest that the conflict of international agreements should be understood as an added layer of legal complexity in trans-border air law disputes, beyond the customary questions around applicable law and jurisdictional competence that are commonplace in private international law. The first part of this study maps the main factors that have led to the emergence of this peculiar conflict in the domain of air law. Among them are the following: the fact that national air law legislations have typically been developed by catching up with prior international regulatory initiatives (to the point of inserting, in national provisions, named references to specific treaties); the development of international air law through different generations of treaties with non-overlapping memberships; the possibility for different degrees of membership within the same treaty, and the succession of states. All these factors contribute to the possibility that a judge, tasked with a trans-border air law dispute, might first need to determine the international agreement under which the dispute falls, to settle preliminary questions of applicable law or jurisdiction. Or that he or she might end up—after following the trail of foreign legislation when settling a conflict of laws—having to apply treaties that might not be compatible with the international obligations of his or her jurisdiction of belonging. The second part of this study then looks at a sample of existing strategies for resolving such uncertainty, by looking at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the jurisprudence of the French Conseil d'État, and doctrinal commentary. As a result, the study finds that the horizontality of international law and the difficulty posed by non-overlapping treaty memberships (so that different rules apply to different sets of states) is, at present, insurmountable. This leaves the possibility open, for instance, that a competent court might have to choose between (i) deferring to private international law norms that might lead to the application of incompatible treaties binding in a foreign legal system, and (ii) applying the different treaties ratified by the state of the competent court. This is what case-by-case decision-making at the point of adjudication might entail, in the absence of a renewed impetus for harmonisation. It is on this basis that the authors conclude with a reasoned plea for new initiatives aiming at greater uniformity in international air law.