Pluralismo y Multiculturalidad: Tribunal Arbitral Musulmán y Consejos Islámicos ('Sharia Courts') en el Reino Unido (Pluralism and Multiculturality, Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and Sharia Courts in the United Kingdom)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: El presente estudio explora la interrelacion entre el pluralismo legal y la multiculturalidad, tomando como referencia los grupos minoritarios musulmanes nomoi britanicos y los medios alternativos de solucion de controversias representados por los Consejos Islamicos o de la Sharia y el Tribunal Arbitral Musulman (MAT). Sin embargo, antes de tratar sobre esta cuestion en el Reino Unido, nuestro estudio lleva a cabo indagaciones desde un punto de vista comparado respecto del Canada y los Estados Unidos donde, a pesar de semejanzas no menores entre ambos, el estatus de los antes citados medios alternativos de solucion de controversias es, en la actualidad, muy distinto, dado el grado mas intenso de pluralismo religioso y el mayor juego en general del arbitraje en los Estados Unidos. Estos dos factores, y el pragmatismo y la tolerancia bien conocidos del Reino Unido resultan, asimismo, aunque hayan surgido brotes de controversia sobre ello, en la aceptacion en ese Pais de la practica de los Consejos Islamicos y el MAT, en el claroscuro de la ley Britanica -en el caso de los primeros- o sometido al imperio de tal ley y cubierto por el Acta de Arbitraje de 1996, en el del MAT. Asi concebidos, mostramos nuestro acuerdo con la aceptacion de estos tipos de solucion de controversias, que pensamos sintonizan plenamente y, en especial, en el caso del MAT, con el deber del Estado moderno en cuanto a la preservacion de los derechos de las minorias y de la libertad de religion y creencias, como ejemplos de un compromiso genuino hacia la plenitud de los Derechos Humanos. English Abstract: This study explores the interface between legal pluralism and multiculturality, taking as reference british muslim minority nomoi groups and the altemative means of solution of controversies embodied in the Sharia Councils and the Muslim Arbitral Tribunal (MAT). Howewer, before dealing with this matter in the United Kingdom, our study makes insights from a comparative point of view both in Canada and the United States, where, in spite of no minor similitudes, the status of the aforesaid means of altemative solution of controversies is, at present time, far more different, given a deeper degree of religious pluralism and more reliance in arbitration at large in the United States. These two factors, and the widely known pragmatism and tolerance of the United Kingdom result, although there have been rounds of controversy about it, in the acceptance in that Country of the workings of the Sharia Councils and the MAT, in the twilight of British law-in the first case- or taken under the rule of that law covered by the Arbitration Act of 1996, in the case of the MAT. Conceived on these terms, we agree on the acceptation of these types of controversies 's solutions -specially in case of the MAT- that we think are in full accordance with the modern State's duty to preserve minorities' rights and freedom of religion and beliefs as examples of a genuine commitment towards the fulfillment of Human Rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".