Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Highlights
Introduction
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) embodies the individual rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a legally binding instrument. The ICCPR underpins international thought regarding the promotion and protection of civil and political rights. Given the covenant’s significance and the adherence of numerous states worldwide, including Muslim countries, several questions arise concerning the differences, similarities, and superiority of the rights outlined therein compared to domestic laws and their implementation in these states. This article examines these questions.
Tunisia and Morocco, as Muslim states, have acceded to the ICCPR alongside other international and regional human rights instruments. Following certain historical developments, particularly in Tunisia since the establishment of its republic in 1956 and the Arab Spring, steps have been taken to promote and protect human rights through drafting, adopting, and enforcing laws. It is thus imperative to conduct a comparative assessment of ICCPR provisions—as obligations imposed on these two states—and their respective constitutional and civil laws as well as to examine their implementation and effects on the human rights landscape.
Islam holds a significant influence in Muslim countries, extending beyond the political sphere to encompass societal socialization, cultural and social values, and variations in legislation and its enforcement. This research undertakes a comparative analysis with a focus on four key components—women’s rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief, and criminal rights of defendants and offenders. The study examines the legal indicators and dimensions related to these components under the ICCPR and their respective constitutions from 2010 to 2020.
In light of the concrete realities of the global landscape, a fundamental question is whether human rights treaties, despite their undeniable value, are effective in advocating for human rights at the national level. To what extent can international commitments engender legal and operational changes within a society’s belief systems and cultural foundations concerning human rights? What limitations exist in this regard? This paper aims to investigate the impact of international obligations on the belief systems and cultural foundations of societies in the realm of human rights.
Methodology
Employing a qualitative research methodology, this paper aims to verify its hypothesis, positing the divergence of these two Muslim states from their obligations under the ICCPR. The article endeavors to prove its claim through a descriptive and comparative analysis of data and the use of textual sources. Following an introductory section, the paper is structured into four sections as well as a concluding section.
Results and Discussion
The research findings indicate that these states maintain a distance from fully adhering to their obligations due to a confluence of factors, including alternative legal provisions established through legislation, political considerations and the imperative of power preservation, the significance accorded to Islamic Sharia, cultural factors, societal characteristics, and a deficiency in appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion
This study conducted a comparative analysis of the extent to which Tunisia and Morocco, both signatories to the ICCPR, have fulfilled their obligations under this crucial international human rights instrument. The research utilizes various sources, including constitutional texts, domestic legislation, realities from both countries, existing academic studies, documents from the Human Rights Committee, periodic Committee reports, opinions of thematic special rapporteurs, and reports issued by non-governmental human rights organizations.
Based on the collected data, the research hypothesis positing a significant gap between the two Muslim states and their fulfillment of ICCPR obligations is substantiated. Despite their unconditional acceptance of the covenant, both Tunisia and Morocco demonstrate limitations and deviations in their adherence to its provisions. These shortcomings can be attributed to various factors, including political considerations and the desire to maintain power.
While both states have enacted legislation to promote and protect human rights, practical implementation of these rights in the four selected areas—women’s rights, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and the rights of defendants and offenders—reveals a disparity between the legal framework and the actual fulfillment of obligations.
This study reveals that political considerations significantly influence the states’ implementation of their obligations under the ICCPR across the four examined areas. Concerning women’s rights, a fundamental aspect of human rights protection, Tunisia and Morocco are concurrently party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. However, they have both subordinated their obligations to domestic factors, including Islamic Sharia, prevailing societal norms, and cultural considerations, which collectively undermine the full realization of women’s rights as enshrined in the ICCPR.
Regarding freedom of religion and belief, Tunisia has, in principle, adopted a permissive approach, aligning with the covenant. However, the individuals who exercise this freedom do not lead completely normal lives due to the pervasive influence of Islamic values within society. More significantly, the Moroccan Constitution explicitly prohibits the conversion from Islam to other religions, placing it in direct conflict with the provisions of the ICCPR.
In both Tunisia and Morocco, exercising the freedom of expression is subject to significant restrictions. While Tunisia’s limitations are justified by the need to protect the gains of the revolution and the broader public interest, Morocco’s constraints are rooted in the preservation of public order, territorial integrity, Islamic law, and the monarchy. These restrictions are at odds with their obligations under the ICCPR.
As regards the rights of defendants and offenders, numerous international reports have documented violations of these rights in these two states, including instances of abuse, torture, and prolonged detention, indicating a systemic disregard for the provisions of the ICCPR. Such violations, as in the case of the right to freedom of expression, are less attributable to cultural or Islamic factors but are more closely tied to political considerations and the imperative to maintain power.
While challenges to fulfilling obligations under international human rights instruments are relatively common among all state parties, the arguments presented in this article appear to have imposed specific limitations on the implementation of the covenant in these two states. In response to the article’s central question, the study suggests that international human rights obligations, despite their significance, have limited capacity to induce fundamental changes in societal beliefs. A political lens reveals that these restrictions are motivated by the Tunisian regime’s desire for self-preservation and the Moroccan monarchy’s aim to maintain its supremacy.
In a final analysis of the implementation of international covenants, as in the case of the ICCPR, it is noteworthy that beyond the stipulations outlined in these instruments and domestic laws, and in addition to public culture, attention must be directed to the internalization of human rights values and norms by the people. This is especially true in Muslim countries where Islamic values have been internalized by people across generations over centuries. Many cultural and social aspects have been respected by society for centuries, and changes are neither easily feasible nor necessarily desirable. In most developing countries, particularly Muslim ones, human rights are often viewed as an imperialist and imported tool. The mere accession of states to international agreements, for various reasons, does not necessarily engender a shift in attitudes at various societal levels. This phenomenon often serves as a tool for governments to maintain their domestic authority.
Subjects
