Law Commons^™

Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah Melalui Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional Dan Lembaga Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Prospek Perkembangan Ekonomi Syariah Di Indonesia, Baiq Inti Dhena Sinayang

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

The increasing number of sharia economic disputes as a result of sharia economic development causes alternative dispute resolution to be an option in resolving sharia disputes. Basyarnas and LAPS-OJK are sharia economic dispute resolution forums outside of litigation. From the results of the research, it is known that the National Basyarnas need to be strengthened against the implications of the unregistered Basyarnas in the LAPS-POJK list after the issuance of POJK No. 61 of 2020 jo. POJK No. 1 of 20014 concerning LAPS in the financial services sector. The mechanism for dispute resolution procedures at Basyarnas starts from the request …

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Blending Scripture And The Law: The Lack Of Christian Law And The Dangers It Presents In Christian Arbitration, Emily Holland

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper will examine the ways in which a lack of an established substantive law within the Christian faith tradition affects the Christian arbitration process and explore the possible means to address these issues. It will outline the history and functions of Christian tribunals, highlighting the unique space within the justice system that these special tribunals fill. Next, it will discuss the differences between the application of law in tribunals of other religious faith traditions and the application of law in Christian arbitration. This paper will demonstrate how a lack of concrete and applicable law creates issues in the enforceability …

In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State Of Mind Relates To Religious Arbitration, Skylar Reese Croy

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Arguably, binding religious arbitration agreements are constitutionally problematic because they hinder freedom of religion: They inhibit parties’ ability to change their beliefs. However, religious arbitration agreements also offer an outlet for the religiously inclined to further practice their beliefs. This Article offers a middle ground: If a party to a religious arbitration agreement changes religion, he or she can claim a “conscientious objector” status if he or she can prove the agreement violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. Courts are allowed to inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs. The religious question doctrine — which restricts …

The Case For American Muslim Arbitration, Rabea Benhalim

Publications

This Article advocates for the creation of Muslim arbitral tribunals in the United States. These tribunals would better meet the needs of American Muslims, who currently bring their religious disputes to informal forums that lack transparency. Particularly problematic, these existing forums often apply legal precedent developed in majority-Muslim nations, without taking into consideration the changed circumstances of Muslim living as minorities in the United States. These interpretations of Islamic law can have especially negative impacts on women. American Muslim arbitration tribunals offer the potential to correct these inadequacies. Furthermore, a new arbitral system could better meet the needs of sophisticated …

The Future Of Religious Arbitration In The United States: Looking Through A Pluralist Lens, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Religious Arbitration And Its Struggles With American Law & Judicial Review, Sukhsimranjit Singh

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

No abstract provided.

“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty

Pepperdine Law Review

At the beginning of 2014, about a dozen states introduced or re-introduced bills to ban the use of Sharī’ah law. They hope to join the seven states that have ostensibly banned it to date. Anti-Sharī’ah advocates have cited a number of cases to back their tenuous claim that Sharī’ah is stealthily sneaking in through the doctrine of comity, but a close examination of the cases they cite contradicts their claim. Comity, when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another, has been accepted and denied based on legal principles and public policy, on a case-by-case basis. There is no creeping …

Religious Law, Family Law And Arbitration: Shari'a And Halakha In America, Mohammad H. Fadel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The possibility that Muslims might use private arbitration as a forum in which their family law disputes could be settled according to the principles of Islamic law has generated substantial controversy, with one liberal democracy, Canada, even taking affirmative steps to insure that religious-based arbitration of family law disputes are denied legal recognition. This paper argues that such moves are ill-considered. From the perspective of political liberalism, the arbitration of family law disputes within a framework of religious law, provided that the arbitration is subject to review by a public court for conformity with public policy, is an ideal tool …

Faith-Based Private Arbitration As A Model For Preserving Rights And Values In A Pluralistic Society, Michael J. Broyde

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article discusses private arbitration in religious and values-oriented communities. Using contract law as the foundation for arbitration law, religious arbitration panels can function almost like courts so long as the government can assure basic fairness and proper procedures, while allowing the parties to resolve their private dispute as the parties wish. This article explains that to be enforced, these private courts must meet the procedural requirements set by the Federal Arbitration Act, but American arbitration law is not generally concerned with the substantive law used by these tribunals, although this article recommends practices that religious tribunals ought to adopt …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael A. Helfand

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules, but treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards from judicial scrutiny even on procedural grounds, leaving courts …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …

Arbitration's Counter-Narrative: The Religious Arbitration Paradigm, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Arbitration theory and doctrine is dominated by an overarching narrative that conceptualizes arbitration as an alternative to litigation. Litigation, one the one hand, is more procedurally rigorous, but takes longer and costs more; arbitration, on the other hand, is faster and cheaper, but provides fewer procedural safeguards. But notwithstanding these differences, both arbitration and litigation ultimately serve the same purpose: resolving disputes. Indeed, this narrative has been pervasive, becoming entrenched not only in recent Supreme Court decisions, but also garnering support from both arbitration critics and supporters alike.

This Article, however, contends that this exclusive focus on arbitration’s standard narrative …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …

Beit Din's Gap-Filling Function: Using Beit Din To Protect Your Client, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This article considers how rabbinical courts play an important gap-filling role by providing parties with a forum to adjudicate a subset of religious disputes that could not be resolved in court. Under current constitutional doctrine, civil courts cannot adjudicate disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice. By contrast, rabbinical courts can resolve such disputes--and the decisions of rabbinical courts can then be enforced by civil courts even as those same civil courts could not resolve the dispute in the first instance. In this way, rabbinical courts--like other religious arbitration tribunals--fill a void created by constitutional law, ensuring that parties …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards (Video), Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Religion’S Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Jewish Law Courts In America: Lessons Offered To Sharia Courts By The Beth Din Of America Precedent, Michael J. Broyde

Faculty Articles

Although the BDA is now a fifty-year-old organization, its true metamorphosis as an arbitration panel began only in 1996 when it gained autonomy from the Rabbinical Council of America. In the fifteen years since, an independent board of directors has worked with the BDA’s rabbinic leaders to craft an arbitration process that secular courts would feel comfortable upholding. While the BDA’s transformation required some level of compromise within Jewish law itself, the adaptations necessary for judicial acceptance proved to be procedural. Broadly, this meant conforming to the tenets of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). More specifically, the BDA’s viability came …

Religion's Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC has been hailed as an unequivocal victory for religious liberty, the Court’s holding in footnote four – that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar – undermines decades of conventional thinking about the relationship between church and state. For some time, a wide range of scholars had conceptualized the relationship between religious institutions and civil courts as “jurisdictional” – that is, scholars converged on the view that the religion clauses deprived courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over religious claims. In turn, courts could not adjudicate religious disputes …

Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This article considers how parties should resolve disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice – that is, how people should litigate religion. Under current constitutional doctrine, litigating religion is generally the task of two types of religious institutions: first, religious arbitration tribunals, whose decisions are protected by arbitration doctrine, and religious courts, whose decision are protected by the religion clauses. Such institutions have been thrust into playing this role largely because the religion clauses are currently understood to prohibit courts from resolving religious questions – that is, the “religious question” doctrine is currently understood to prohibit courts from litigating …

Speaker, “Religion’S Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Religion’S Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Church Autonomy And Religious Arbitration: Two Models Of Legal Pluralism”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Church Autonomy And Religious Arbitration: Two Models Of Legal Pluralism”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Religious Arbitration And The New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Article considers a trend towards what I have termed the "new multiculturalism," where conflicts between law and religion are less about recognition and symbolism and more about conflicting legal orders. Nothing typifies this trend more than the increased visibility of religious arbitration, whereby religious groups use current arbitration doctrine to have their disputes adjudicated not in U.S. courts and under U.S. law, but before religious courts and under religious law. This dynamic has pushed the following question to the forefront of the multicultural agenda: under what circumstances should U.S. courts enforce arbitration awards issued by religious courts in accordance …

Fighting For The Debtor's Soul: Regulating Religious Commercial Conduct, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Although courts often think of religion in terms of faith, prayer, and conscience, many religious groups are increasingly looking to religion as a source of law, commerce, and contract. As a result, courts are being called upon to regulate conduct that is simultaneously religious and commercial. In addressing such cases, some courts minimize the religious features of the case and simply focus on its secular elements while others over-exaggerate the religious features of the case and thereby refuse to adjudicate the dispute on Establishment Clause grounds. As an example of this dynamic, I explore the constitutionality of imposing sanctions for …

Speaker, “Religious Arbitration And The New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Religious Arbitration And The New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Panelist, “Rabbinical Arbitration In The 21st Century: Contemporary Issues And Challenges”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.