MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2780089108 · doi:10.13130/1971-8543/9161

Challenges of Pluralistic Societies with Dissimilar Cultural Identities and Religious Legal Traditions: ADR and the Role of Religious Mediation and Arbitration

2017· article· en· W2780089108 sur OpenAlex
Gloria M. Morán García

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRiviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano) · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArbitrationReligious lawLegal pluralismJurisdictionLawPolitical scienceReligious pluralismPluralism (philosophy)SociologyIslamMediationLegal realismComparative lawPhilosophyTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary: 1. The Challenges of Pluralistic Societies with Dissimilar Cultural Identities and Religious Traditions: from a Melting Pot to a Cultural Mosaic - 2. European Catholic Tradition of Dual Legislation and Jurisdiction: 2.1. The Development of the Religious Jurisdiction: from the Episcopalis Audientia under the Christian Roman Empire to the Homologation of Religious Decisions by a Civil Judge – 2.2. The Development of Secular and Religious Jurisdictions: from the Leges Barbarorum et Romanorum under the Principle of Personality to the Medieval Dual Jurisdiction in Europe – 2.3. Religious Minorities under Christian Rulers – 3. Muslim Legal Tradition of Plural Jurisdictions: 3.1. Muslim Empires and the Dhimma System – 3.2. Islamic Communities in Transition: from the Pre-colonial Era to the Colonial Rule – 3.3. The Exceptionality of Palestine and Israel- 4. Toward a Global World: Legal Pluralism and the Development of ADR. The Role of Religious Mediation and Arbitration: 4.1. The American Experience in Religious Arbitration: the Jewish Beth Din Courts and the Challenge of Islamic Arbitration – 4.2. Confronting the Fear of Islamic Arbitration Tribunals in the UK, Canada, and Australia - 5. Conclusions. Abstract: Most of juridical systems are historically developed from the interaction of two main legal principles: the principle of personality and the principle of territoriality. Roman Law is one of the best examples of it; its legacy channeled the growth and coexistence of religious and secular jurisdictions in the Germanic kingdoms of Western Europe. Under the principle of personality of laws, bonding individuals to their cultural or religious communities, legal pluralism was the common grounds from the Antiquity to the pre-Modern era. However, as a result of the religious wars in the Holy Roman Empire between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th and the 17th centuries, the Westphalian state model reinforced a territorial religious jurisdiction under the principle cuius regio eius religio, allowing the ruler to impose his religion on his subjects. The Muslim legal tradition developed, as well, plural juridical systems from the Dhimma System. One of them was the Ottoman Millet system that was adapted from the colonial era to the most of Middle East nation-states as a bonding personal religious law applied to non-Muslim communities. The secular paradigm of the Rule of Law, centralizing and reinforcing state and federal legislative powers, is implemented in Europe and her former colonies in the 19th century under the nation-state constitutional model, expanding worldwide the principles of territoriality and citizenship. As a result, religious legal systems are progressively confined to the private sphere. However, the secular paradigm is confronted gradually by a new development of legal pluralism, mainly as an effect of an extensive increment of global migrations; Halakha or Jewish Law, Canon Law or Catholic Law, Sharia or Islamic Law, are gaining strength as formal or informal religious ADR under the principle of Religious Freedom. Religious legal systems are becoming an innovative tool of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration accepted by some secular jurisdictions around the world, although there is a polarized debate about it. In today´s global world, which are the lessons to be learned from legal traditions and contemporary models of legal pluralism? Can religious legal systems become a tool of mediation for restorative justice preventing and exiting from violence? This article addresses this juridical and social challenge from an interdisciplinary comparative analysis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,632
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,942

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle