Suchergebnisse

A cliché arises when Islam is claimed to be the source of a succession of terrorist attacks. As a result, several states have been concerned about and distrustful of Muslims—Islamophobia. Islamophobia is linked to unfavorable stereotypes about Muslims and Islam, which leads to the formation of anti-Islam sentiment. Prejudice stems from the belief that Islam is a lesser faith that poses a challenge to society's prevailing ideals. Because of its dichotomous function, the media has become the focus of attention in the instance of Islamophobia. It has become the source of the symptoms of Islamophobia. As a human civilization that relies on revenue to survive, Muslim communities have witnessed Islamophobia wreaking havoc on their businesses, overall economy, and resources. Islamophobia is a global issue associated with unfavorable attitudes and biases toward Muslims and Islam; it requires proper knowledge, good reporting, and appropriate representation at the international level.

Abstract
This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state's international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court's denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.