Towards International Mechanisms for Resolving Investment Disputes in Qatar

In addition to possessing one of the largest proven gas reserves worldwide, Qatar benefits from a strategic location between the East and West, forming an attractive destination for foreign direct investments. Law No. 1/2019 regulating non-Qatari capital investments provides investors with greater political and social stability along with a full range of benefits. The most significant among these benefits is the freedom offered by the legislator to resolve any dispute by choosing any type of settlement dispute. Hence, Article 16 of Law No. 1/2019 states that ‘unless it is a labour dispute, the non-Qatari Investor may agree to settle any dispute between them and others through arbitration or any other means of settling disputes in accordance with the law’. This article will discuss and analyse the other means of dispute settlement mechanism compatible with Qatar, especially when online dispute resolution has become more significant in the era of COVID-19.

The Rights of Religious Minorities in Iraq: The Case of the Forced Conversion of Minors

Religion raises many legal questions in confessional systems where a minor child is usually assigned the parents’ religion ex officio. In Iraq, as in many Middle Eastern countries, the conversion to Islam of one of the parents results in the conversion of their minor children. For decades, the Iraqi Court of Cassation has granted children the right to choose their religion upon reaching majority. From the early 21st century, the case law of the Court of Cassation has evolved towards denying children this right of option (iḫtiyār). The child is therefore deprived of his/her right to choose and must remain Muslim. In this article, the author criticizes this reversal of jurisprudence and deplores its dire consequences on social peace. After analyzing the teachings of Islamic law and the texts of positive Iraqi law, he concludes that the new trend of the Court of Cassation is ill-founded and flawed.

The Jurisdiction of the UAE Federal Supreme Court on Constitutional Interpretation

While a Constitution embodies the basic principles and laws of a nation, its language and text may introduce ambiguity or confusion, especially during implementation of its laws. In such situations, interpretation of the text becomes more important than the text itself. The Federal UAE Constitution was issued in 1971 and includes a provision to specify the authority competent to interpret its contents. However, if the constitutional text that cited the interpretation jurisdiction of the Court is brief, then this research only gains important reason to explore the ambiguities of these texts and work. Therefore, this study aims to review and analyze Court rulings according to interpretation requests submitted to it from its inception to date. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to attempt to undertake the Court’s interpretative experience into a constructive legal analysis and highlight this genuine constitutional competence, which lacks a detailed discussion.

International Responsibility of State for the Acts of an Unsuccessful Insurrectional Movement: Case of ISIS in Iraq

ISIS, as an insurgent movement, announced its presence in Iraq in 2013, and, after extensive military and non-military activities in the country, its suppression was officially declared by the Prime Minister in 2017. The main question is whether the actions of this failed insurgent movement can be attributed to Iraq under international law of responsibility? This study shows that, since the Iraqi Government has taken due diligence to suppress the movement and prosecute its members, and has not granted amnesty, acts of ISIS are not attributed to it. But governmental acts of ISIS including legislative, executive and judicial ones can be attributed to state if they has taken in absence or default of government officials and in response to a request for such acts. Some of ISIS’s acts in Iraq especially in Mosul have these characteristics and are accordingly attributed to Iraq.

The Legal Regime of the Kuwait–Saudi Divided Zone: Clash or Integration Between Sovereignty and Cooperation?

This article intends to explain the legal regime of the Kuwaiti–Saudi Divided Zone, also called the Neutral Zone, in accordance with the Kuwait–Saudi Arabia Agreement to Partition the Neutral Zone signed in 1965, the Treaty Between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia Concerning the Submerged Area Adjacent to the Divided Zone signed in 2000, the Treaty Supplements to the Agreement to Partition and Treaty Concerning the Submerged Area signed in 2019, and the 2019 Memo of Understanding. Additionally, this article addresses the concerns raised by many Kuwaiti scholars, writers, and policymakers regarding the legitimacy and constitutionality of the divided zone system. Moreover, this article emphasizes the importance of the agreed-upon regime based on the principles of sovereignty and cooperation for advancing the interests of both parties at present and in the future. Finally, this article aims to shed light on some potential issues of conflict.

Ġarar vs. Jurisprudential Necessity in Commercial Insurance Contracts

This study deals with the effect of ġarar (uncertainty) and jurisprudential necessity on the Sharīʿah permissibility of commercial insurance contracts, using an analytical and critical approach. The study clarifies the meaning of ġarar, and its effect on contracts, by verifying the effective cause of ġarar, determining its degree, and ascertaining the rationale for its prohibition. The criterion for differentiating between trivial and substantial ġarar is discussed, as well as the views of jurists who permit insurance contracts through a holistic view approach, contrary to the traditional view. The study distinguishes between ḥāǧah (necessity) in the jurisprudential sense, general necessity as expressed in the objectives of the lawgiver, from the concept of ḍarūrah (essentiality). Furthermore, the study highlights an important jurisprudential rule that has direct effect on the permissibility of insurance contracts, i.e., ‘what is forbidden for the prevention of the means (of corruption) is permitted for the preponderant interest’.

Is It Possible to Overrule a Constitutional Precedent in the Egyptian Legal System?

This article examines the constitutionality of the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court’s (hereinafter SCC) authority to overrule its prior precedents. The authors argue, contrary to the assertions of the predominant conservative approach in Egypt, that bestowing the SCC with such an overruling power neither violates the Constitution nor undermines fundamental legal principles such as the principles of equality, legal certainty, or the justified expectations of litigants. Indeed, we make the argument that the Court’s ability to overrule its prior precedents seems to be the most conceivable and plausible way to correct the Court’s past mistakes or inaccuracies. We finally claim that endowing the court with such overruling power enhances the constitutional protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and strengthens the Court’s credibility not only via other public authorities, but also via public opinion.