The 2002 Bahrain Constitution is a controversial document. It was passed after a brief and disputed consultation process after the suspension of Bahrain’s 1973 Constitution, and was positioned as the anchor of political reform and liberalization after decades of turbulence in the small nation-state. This Constitution, however, fell short of establishing a constitutional system of government and in turn failed to achieve political stability, and its legitimacy remains under attack. This paper examines both the text and context of the 2002 Constitution, identifying the problematic provisions, institutional gaps, and power dynamics that have limited its effectiveness to date. I argue that the 2002 Constitution, although it was written to enshrine the status quo balance of power and has in practice failed to establish a constitutional system of government, has had an impact in transforming the political discourse of the country and continues to have the potential to be a tool to promote further political reform and liberalization.

In contemporary conversations regarding Islamic law and ethics, two influential voices, Dr. Khaled Abou Fadel and Dr. Tariq Ramadan, have both called for a moratorium on the hudud punishments arguing that they are unethical and contravene international humanitarian law. Although the nuances of their arguments differ, they both agree that the principles the hudud punishments seek to protect are immutable, but the punishments themselves can and should be amended to coincide with what is ethically acceptable as a form of criminal punishment. Certain detractors posit that the hudud punishments cannot be abandoned wholesale; instead creative solutions should be found whereby the hudud punishments are retained and international humanitarian law is not violated. This paper presents an example of such creativity in the codification of Islamic penal law in the Maldives in the last decade. According to the constitution of the Maldives, the Shari’a undergirds legislation, thus Article 15 gives provision to the hudud punishments. However, legislators have framed the hudud in an original way. This paper will explore how the penal code of the Maldives has attempted to retain the hudud punishments, but amended them such that their implementation cannot be deemed unethical according to international human rights laws. I will argue that this is done in two ways: first, by a tripartite source model which creates law on the basis of Maldivian statutes, the Shari’a and Maldivian shared community values; and second, by implementing the hudud symbolically not formalistically. The Maldivian case becomes important because not only does it demonstrate ethical and legal challenges present in both implementing and abandoning the hudud, but it also provides a lens into the transformation of Islamic criminal law in contemporary Muslim societies where political institutions and Western notions of the ‘rule of law’ reign supreme.

For several decades Palestinian women’s organizations have been advocating for a unified Muslim family law code that would apply to both the West Bank and Gaza. Currently, shari‘a courts in the West Bank apply the 1976 Jordanian family code and Gaza uses the 1954 Egyptian family code, although judges have made certain procedural reforms in response to women’s issues with the present systems. Also, the political rift between the PA and Hamas since 2006 has only heightened the need for a unified code. In the absence of a sitting parliament because of Israeli restrictions, human rights and women’s groups, the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and the Chief Justice’s office have been negotiating a new draft law that includes important reforms. This paper briefly outlines the proposed changes in the draft law, such as raising the minimum marriage age to eighteen, a khul’a law similar to Egypt’s 2000 law (wife-initiated divorce that does not require the husband’s consent), and extending the mother’s custody period until her child is fifteen years. Chief Justices have made a handful of procedural changes that have improved women’s status in family law since Oslo, which this paper notes, but there is still a critical need for a unified law code. An encouraging sign of the prospects for change was former Chief Justice Tamimi’s appointment of three women judges to the shari‘a courts in 2009. This reform is unprecedented in the Middle East. It is particularly significant because the women judges are supportive of family law reform and have been active participants in the coalition of groups drafting a new law. This paper discusses my findings from interviews with two of the judges, which reveal their views on reform and their experiences and challenges as the first women judges in Palestine. Finally, this paper highlights Palestinian society’s views on family law reform. I will present findings from interviews and surveys that I conducted, along with a recent joint United Nations/Birzeit study.