Differences between US and Arabia Law - Coursework Example

Business Law Differences between US and Arabia Law Sources of Law Saudi Arabia acknowledges Islamic law in its constitution through making Islam the authorized religion of the state. It also states that sharia is the source of the country’s laws. For instance, the 1992 primary law in Saudi Arabia outlines the state’s constitution consists of the Sunna and the Qur’an, the sayings and actions of the prophet as documented in the hadith. All penal, economic, financial, cultural, political, administrative, and civil laws and regulations must base on the criteria of Islam. Sharia has also been included in the Islamic legal codes by legislation orb by decree. In Saudi Arabia, supreme religious councils order how Islamic law should be applied and have authority over legislation. On the other hand, the IUS law is derived from, statutory law, common law, court rules, administrative law, and constitutional law. Statutes provide enactments of legislative bodies of the US and are more specific in dealing with issues than the constitution. Common law, sometimes called case law provides laws or decisions by courts in personal cases. The US’ court system consists of judicial branches of the state and federal governments charged with the interpretation and application of the law. The system is divided into two administrative split systems, the state and the federal, each acting as independent of the legislative and executive branch. It is a dual court system inherited from the colonial period. In comparison, the court system of Saudi Arabia or the Sharia court system includes the basic judiciary of the nation and its lawyers and judges make up the ulema, which is the country’s religious leadership. Besides, there are extra-sharia state tribunals that handle conflicts related to particular royal decrees. The final appeal from both the government tribunals and sharia courts is to the king. All tribunals and courts follow sharia rules of procedure and evidence. However, this system has been criticized for being arcane, slow, and lack of some protection of justice and of being unable of dealing with world issues. The court system in Saudi Arabia has no jury trials and their courts consider few formalities. In the United States, a right to appeal is guaranteed by the statute or an underlying legal or constitutional principle. An appellate court must listen to the appeal. The appeal by permission or leave needs the appellant to get a leave to appeal. In situations like this, the appellate court and the lower court may refuse or grant the appellant’s command to appeal the decision of the lower court. The US supreme court requires that reviews be available only in cases where the court grants a summon of certiorari and exercises discretion. In Saudi Arabia, the issue of guaranteeing a right to appeal is addressed by the human rights council. However, there is a need to amend laws in the laws this country so that the rights drafted under the global agreement of political and civil rights are reinforced by proper legislation under the law. It should include the rights to appeal on laws and facts. Is the Montana medical state lawful? According to the state’s medical report on marijuana law, it is not considered unconstitutional and those people who are in its challenge are first entitled to preliminary injunction to help stop it from further implementation. This report has been seconded by the Attorney General’s Office after a court’s filing. The US attorney general Steve Bullock responded to the lawsuit that had been filed at the State District court by the Montana Cannabis Association and seven other individuals who were demanding the judge, James Reynold to strike down the necessary Medical Marijuana Act and termed it as unconstitutional. The judge has thus set the 20 and the 21st of June to be the date for the oral argument. It has been found out that those who argue and challenge the laws first have not met to the burdens of coming up and establishing the law as unconstitutional in the entirety. Despite part of the law being unconstitutional, the severability clause of the law has allowed the rest of the provisions to remain in an intact, manner. This was reported by the memorandum by Sir Bullock, Molloy James who is the chief consumer protection and Stuart Segret and Mark Mattioli its assistant attorney generals (Clarkson and Cross 45-47). According to the state’s report, the Montana department for public health and other human services has already started to implement the new existing law. Furthermore, the attorney general has asserted that first injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the law would create more problems and confusions. Thus those who are challenging the law have instead made errors to elevate voter-passed in 2004 statutory initiative which legalized the medical marijuana to become constitutional principles. The new provisions in the law are intended to act faithfully to the original intentions of the ballot measures. This should be done in line with the correction and reigning of the unintended and the undesirable abuses and other problems which have undeniably occurred. The senate, in the issue bill number 423 has been heavily debated on the bill that was passed by the 2011 legislative and further allowed to be a law without Brian Schweitzer’s signature. It therefore repeals the 2004 referendum thus imposing numerous restrictions on the medical marijuana industry which the majority of the US legislators believed that it has reeled out of its control. The law has hindered patients to claim severe and chronic pains that makes one qualify for a medical pot card. In addition, the law will ban the major medical marijuana growing and operations that may replace them with the rule of grow your own operating system or else lead to a provider that may grow for up to at least three patients without any single charge. In Montana there are more than 30,000 marijuana medical cardholders and up to about 4000 people were having it in September in 2009 (Emerson 102). The largest amount of the people lies within the age bracket of 18-30 years and 80 percent acquired the card after their claims on chronic pains and muscle spasms which some of the legislator considered as a major loophole. Is there any duty to rescue someone in peril? In the lawsuit that was filed by Montana association of cannabis and others asserted that the new law on Montana medical violated the constitutional rights as compared to equal protection, dignity, privacy and freedom of speech . Also the rights to pursue the basic life necessities like personal health and rights against the unreasoned seizures and searches is hindered. They referred to the law that was set in 2004 that curved the exceptions from crude criminal sanctions aimed at the controlled purpose and medical usage. Whether or not to rescue a person in peril can be an intricate question. Lawmakers can aid interpret the law and educate you on your rights. In addition, they should help you get over from your injuries. There is no duty to rescue somebody in peril and that an individual cannot be prosecuted for not committing a crime while another individual or person is in peril. However, in some situations or circumstances, there is a special relationship or association between parties in that a person can be held responsible or liable for failing to rescue somebody in peril. In this case, it depends of type of relationship that exists between the parties in order to create a duty to rescue (Cheeseman 98). For instance, an employer can help his employees injured in the course of the duty while at work. When the responsibility to act comes up, a rescuer must behave or act with rational care. This implies that the rescuer does not increase the damage he seeks to address and the rescuer will only be responsible for wanton or gross neglect. A rescuer needs to threaten or endanger his life in conducting the rescue exercise. The rescue teachings that authorizes the rescuers to recover from their own damages or injuries in such cases, does not work in situation where the rescuers are acting or behaving pursuant to work arising from their own make or creation of peril. Whether you were an original tortfeasor, the rescuer and the victim, an attorney can assist you develop your case. Policies for treating someone in peril The legal requirements for any duty to rescue do not actually permit in all states, nations and other localities. A moral or any ethical duty to rescue someone in peril may exist where no legal duty to any rescue applies. In this case there are numerous justified reasons for the policies. Generally, justification occurs regardless of the role that one incurs in as a patient or a doctor. Persons have duties to rescue people in distress due to virtue of humanity despite the skills one has acquired or the nature of the distress the victim is suffering from. In the human nature, the cases of rescue are justified to the extent of the strangers within the vicinity of the rescuer. For instance, if a child was drowning, we would all be willing to rescue him or her. We are obliged to help despite the damage that we cause on the clothes or our pair of shoes. Furthermore, we should also try to rescue distant strangers and not just those close to us due to globalization. This applies to the earlier earthquakes that occurred in Haiti where the Haitians were busy digging their family members, strangers and friends out from the rubble with bare hands. They also carried patients to receive medication. This explains why some of the journalists and other physicians treated people with numerous injuries instead of adhering to their work (Emerson 78-79). This kinds of rescue can be explained by: the golden rule which states that we should treat in the same manner that you would wish to be treated. This theory assumes that all people have a wish to be rescued at one if found in distress and thus would wish to rescue their fellow. The second reason would have been to apply the theory of utilitarian ethics and finally we apply the theory of care ethics. Reason for imposing duty The need to rescue somebody in peril is a legal obligation of rational humanity to the moral responsibility of good man. For instance, if your rescuer injured while rescuing or helping you, you are liable (Cheeseman 40). This reason justifies why t is necessary to rescue others. On the other hand, it is not justifiable because it exposes people o risks of injury, which the rescued person can refuse to be held responsible for. Works Cited Clarkson, Kenneth and Cross, Frank. Business Law: Text and Cases - Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment. New York: South-Western College, 2010. Print. Emerson, Robert. Business Law: Barrons Business Law. New York: Barrons Educational Series, 2009. Print. Cheeseman, Henry. Business Law, 7th Edition. New York: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print. Read More