Implementation of the Right to Choose a Cultural System by Islamic States: a Comparative Analysis

Introduction. The right to choose the state’s cultural system derives from the principle of noninterference in the matters within its domestic jurisdiction. Although the necessity to precise the content of the main principles of international law has been outlined in the Russian international law doctrine, hardly any research focusing on the right to choose cultural system can be found. The research on international law position of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Member States concerning the right to choose the state’s cultural system is lacking despite the fact that historical, cultural and religious particularities of the Member States of the OIC affect the scope of their obligations under international law.

Materials and Methods. The research aims to discover the particularities of the exercise of the right to choose cultural system by the Member States of the OIC and their impact on the qualification of matters within domestic jurisdiction of these states. The research includes historical and systemic legal analysis of the principles and norms of general international law concerning the right to choose the state’s cultural system and their application in OIC acts and constitutional law of OIC Member States on the example of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Republic of Iraq.

Results. The sovereign and inalienable right to choose the state’s economic, political, social and cultural system was enshrined in universal, regional and bilateral international law acts in the result of codification and progressive development of international law norms in the second half of XXth century. The exercise of this right is limited by the state’s international law obligations. Including provisions on the state’s historical, cultural and religious particularities in the state’s basic law should be considered as a form of exercising its right to choose cultural system.

Discussion and Conclusions. If historical, cultural and religious particularities of a state constitute the basis of its state and social system, the legal regulation of these particularities should be considered the matter of its domestic jurisdiction. Thus, such particularities may not be regulated by international law. OIC acts enshrine the limitation of the exercise of the right to choose the state’s cultural system as well as the Member States’ position as regards cases when interference in the exercise of this right is not permissible. The attachment of some OIC Member States to the principles of Islamic Sharia should be considered not only as their historical, cultural and religious particularity but also as a basis of their state and social system, which falls within their domestic jurisdiction.

1. Abashidze A. H., 2017. Principy mezhdunarodnogo prava: problem ponjatijno-soderzhatel’ongo haraktera [Principles of International Law: Problems of Terminology and Content]. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. No. 4. P. 19-30.

2. Arechaga H., 1983. Obshhie principy mezhdunarodnogo prava, regulirujushhie povedenie gosudarstv [General Principles of International Law Governing the Conduct of States]. Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo [Modern International Law]. 480 p.

3. Ivanov D. V., Pchelintseva V. V., 2021. Mezhdunarodnaja zashhita i pooshhrenie prav cheloveka v Organizacii islamskogo sotrudnichestva: sovremennye tendencii [International Protection and Promotion of Human Rights by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Modern Tendencies]. Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek. [Journal of Law and Administration]. Т. 17. No. 2. С. 13-22.

4. Islam. Jenciklopedicheskij slovar' [Islam. Encyclopedic Dictionary]. M., 1991.

5. Kartashkin V. A., 2015. Izmenenie normativnogo soderzhanija osnovnyh principov sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Changes in the Normative Content of the Main Principles of International Law]. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. No. 1. С. 29-39.

6. Kartashkin V.A., 2017. Prava cheloveka i razvitie mezhdunarodnogo prava [Human Rights and Development of International Law]. Rossijskij ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava [Russian Yearbook of International Law]. Vol. 2017. P. 9-19.

7. Kolodkin R. A. 2005. Fragmentacija mezhdunarodnogo prava [Fragmentation of International Law]. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. No. 2. P. 38-61.

8. Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava v VI tomah [Course of International Law in VI Volumes]. Vol. 2. 1967.

9. Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava v VII tomah [Course of International Law in VII Volumes]. Vol. 2. 1989.

10. Pchelinceva V. V., Ivanov D. V., 2022. Zashhita prav cheloveka v Organizacii islamskogo sotrudnichestva: mezhdu universalizmom i kul'turnym reljativizmom [Protection of Human Rights in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: between Universalism and Cultural Relativism]. Zhurnal Sibirskogo federal'nogo universiteta. Serija: Gumanitarnye nauki [Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanitarian Sciences]. 2022. Vol. 15. No. 8. P. 1145-1155.

11. Sinjakin I. I., Skuratova A. Ju., 2018. Normy jus cogens: istoricheskij aspekt i sovremennoe znachenie dlja mezhdunarodnogo prava [Jus Cogens Norms: Historical Aspect and Modern Significance for International Law]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki [Herhald of Perm University. Legal Sciences]. No. 41. P. 526-545.

12. Sjukijajnen L. R., 2016. Konstitucionnyj status shariata kak istochnika zakonodatel'stva v arabskih stranah [Constitutional Status of Shari’a as a Source of Legislation in Arab Countries]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. No. 4. P. 205-222.

13. Sjukijajnen L. R., 2019. Fikh - istochnik sovremennogo prava v arabskih stranah [Fiqh as a Source of Modern Law in Arab States]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. No. 4. P. 222-245.

14. Tunkin G. I. Teorija mezhdunarodnogo prava [Theory of International Law]. 2016.

15. Ushakov N. A., 1994. Suverenitet i ego voploshhenie vo vnutrigosudarstvennom i mezhdunarodnom prave [Sovereignty and its Implementation in National and International Law]. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. No. 2. P. 3-21.

16. Ferdross A., 1959. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law].

17. Chernichenko S. V., 2012. Vzaimosvjaz' imperativnyh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava (jus cogens) i objazatel'stv erga omnes [Interconnection btween the Peremptory Norms of International Law (Jus Cogens) and Erga Omnes Obligations]. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. No. 3. P. 3-17.

18. Chernichenko S. V., 2014. Kontury mezhdunarodnogo prava [Contours of International Law].

19. Aloupi N., 2015. The Right to Non-intervention and Non-interference. Cambridge International Law Journal. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 566-587.

20. Castillo V. L. G., Ángeles J. C., 2015. Islam and International Organizations: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Evolutions in the Law of International Organizations. P. 171-191.

21. Damrosch L. F., 1989. Politics across borders: Non-intervention and nonforcible influence over domestic affairs. American Journal of International Law. Vol. 83. No. 1. P. 1-50.

22. Farrar S., 2014. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Forever on the Periphery of Public International Law? Chinese Journal of International Law. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 787-817.

23. Guerreiro A., 2022. The legal status of the principle of non-intervention. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1. P. 6-26.

24. Gunn T. J., Lagresa A., 2016. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Universal Human Rights, Islamic Values, or Raisons d'Etat. Human Rights and International Legal Discourse. Vol. 10. P. 248-274.

25. Naigen Z., 2016. The principle of Non-interference and its Application in Practices of Contemporary International Law. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol. 9. P. 449-464.