To attempt to speak coherently about the philosophy of love in conjunction with the law is an eccentric undertaking for an international lawyer. This work asserts the view that “love” plays a significant jurisprudential role in both the writing and philosophical interpretation of the law. It is a powerful norm. If the law is written and interpreted with love for human beings, the position of the use of force will be modified and concede its place to the approbation of equal justice and peace based on the primary value of human integrity. The work will be a comparative discussion, as the adherence of European states to both public international law and European Union norms suggests that neither need there be an inevitable divergence between adherence to both these and to Islamic legal norms. It brings into recognition the principle that the use of armed force for any purpose is a serious violation of the jurisprudence of law and runs contrary to the inherent integrity of humankind and the canon of love for justice.
Love is a norm of concern of all states and its boundaries reach even beyond the erga omnes principle but ignorance constitutes the great deficiency of human beings in Islamic and public international law. Both legal disciplines are not only against cruel human violations but also any other minor wrong. The differences between them are not as significant as first assumed. Instead, it is the other way around: the similarities are so significant as to include the very cornerstones of the various frameworks and systems, namely, their underlying principles. A wide-ranging interpretation of Islamic and public international law sources is necessary in order to put an end to all cultural, ethnic, religious, legal and political conflicts with whatever means are available – whether derived from Islamic, European, or other sources. A civilized human rights system or union does not authorize the use of force, nor do they purchase or manufacture weapons in any circumstances, for any reason and to any degree. In other words, pure love constitutes not only the de facto, but also, the de jure criteria of the intention not to segregate.
Analysing the philosophy of criminal justice and international criminal jurisdiction is indeed very complex. At a minimum, one has to be familiar with both common law and civil law systems. Examining the Gaza Strip situation is also simultaneously a very sophisticated task. It needs, to some extent, an understanding, not only of natural and positive law, but also of many principles and cultural heritages of, at least, two ethnic groups, the Palestinians, and the Jews. It is not certainly a question of religious theories, but the potentiality of rightful co-existence. It also requires understanding why these very two old groups have been, since the creation of Israel, constantly suffering from serious armed conflicts. The Gaza crimes are some of the most recent recognized crimes committed against the population of occupied territories. The intention of this article is to re-examine the historical creation of the State of Israel, the influence of the politicians of the United Kingdom in its creation, the murder of European Jews and the killing of physical and psychological integrity of Palestinians under the authority of Israeli governments. The article deals with some of the most significant norms of international criminal law and human rights law that ought to be respected in national or international conflicts regardless of the target of attack. It deals with the concept of criminal responsibility of individuals under the law of international criminal courts.
When implemented, the systems of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Islamic criminal jurisdiction have to ensure equality, justice and peace for humanity. Consequently, implementation of international or Islamic justice does not necessarily emphasise applying the power of law but rather, as well as possible, the power to achieve appropriate human rights principles, which can reach the heart of the international community as a whole. Giving priority to any concept of law, thus recognizing one concept over another, diminishes the value of international criminal justice and creates contradictions in the application of an impartial equal jurisdiction and basic philosophy of cultural attitudes. Therefore, when the ICC Statute was being drafted, there was a strong tendency to overlook the cultural context of law within the social structures of various nations. The chief purpose of this article is to look into the basic principles of the Statute and examine whether similar principles can also be found within Islamic criminal jurisprudence. The article indicates the ability of both systems to function together and increase the practical intensification of international criminal justice. The study also offers, in a homogenous manner, to expand the juridical relationship, seeking cooperation and accommodation between the two systems in order to modify, adapt, adjust or alter laws for the better understanding of justice and equality between nations around the world. Prevention of international crimes will not be achieved through Islamic or ICC jurisprudence, or through any other system of law, but solely by cultivating equal justice together with the spirit of love and mutual admiration. This is the only seed for the promulgation of the ethic of reciprocity or the celebration of the golden rule of humanity.
While the system of international law is improving enormously and certain legal provisions are becoming an integral part of jus cogens norms, this body of law must be studied together with other systems which have basically been effective in its development. The principles of the rule of law must be evaluated collectively rather than selectively. In fact, most Islamic nations have ratified the ICC Statute. They have thereby contributed to the establishment of the pillars of morality, equality, peace and justice. At the same time, those pillars may be strengthened by means of an accurate interpretation of the principles of international criminal laws by all parties. The objective of these comparative philosophies is to examine their core principles, similarities and differences. The intention is to indicate that the variation in theories may not obstruct the legal implementation of international criminal law if their dimensions are judged objectively and with the noblest of motives towards mankind.