درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

An underlying theoretical point of this paper has been that if fundamental commitments and the questions of cultural identity that they bring with them (What is an X?) are understood in terms of functional analyses of the kind I have tried to give in the case of Islamic identity today, then there is scope to see these commitments as susceptible to various criticisms in the particular context of a conflict in which they might figure.  All this seems to me to offer far more scope and interest to moral philosophy than Williams allows it, even after granting to Williams the validity of the central role he gives to the idea of fundamental commitment and the validity of his critique of traditional moral philosophy. <br />  The paper has studied the question "What is a Muslim?" in the dialectic of a conflict arising out of a concern for Islamic Reform.  The conflict is one that arises because of moderate Muslims' fundamental commitment to a doctrine which contains features that are often effectively invoked by the absolutists whom moderate Muslims fundamentally oppose.  If a full analysis of the commitment reveals its defensive function which have disabled Muslims from a creative and powerful opposition to the absolutists, and if, moreover, this function of the commitment is diagnosed as itself based on a deep but common philosophical fallacy, it should be possible then for moderate Muslims to think there way out of this conflict and to transform the nature of their commitment to Islam, so that it is not disabling in that way. <br />The question of identity, "What is a Muslim?", then, will get very different answers before and after this dialectic about reform has played itself out.   The dialectic, thus, preserves the negotiability of the concept of identity and the methodological points I began with, at the same time as it situates and explains the urgency and fascination that such questions hold for us.

Exploitation, Exploration and Extraction of the Area resources are subject to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are bound by its provisions to develop the Area economic activities. All states have a duty to prevent harm to the environment including the marine environment. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has general and ambiguous rules for the support of member states for the operation of sponsored contractors in Area. States are worried that they would be liable by sponsoring contractors from their Area’s actions. Eliminating the ambiguity of this concern is issue of Advisory Opinion that has been requested from the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal Law of the Sea to interpret the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The main question is what are the obligations of the Sponsoring State in supporting the activities of the contractor in the Area based on Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal Law of the Sea’s Advisory Opinion? Research findings show that Judges interpret the main concepts outlined in Part XI and XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including due diligence, obligation to ensure, and obligation to achieve, argued that the Sponsoring State’s obligations to the Sponsored Contractor’s activities are obligation to ensure. The Sponsoring State advocates for the contractor to comply with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the contracting parties, use appropriate instruments and endeavor to achieve maximum results and achieve these goals. Under these conditions, the responsibility for the damage by Sponsored Contractor to the Area environment is not borne to the Sponsoring State.