The concept of statehood in international law is basically enumerated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention which provides four characteristics of a State in its Article 1: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States. The Montevideo criteria are so far the most frequently quoted to be the elements of statehood. However, it remains uncertain that these criteria conclusively determine the existence of statehood since there were numerous disagreement among modern writers. Although the concept of state has been well-established by the 1933 Convention, in Islam, such concept has been practiced a long time ago by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and His Companions. Therefore, this article attempts to make comparison between the concept of state in the Montevideo Convention 1933 and Islamic law with reference to the Quranic verses, the practice of the Prophet (PBUH) and His Companions, and the writings of modern Islamic scholars. This article is a qualitative legal study where the data compiled through library research method. The article finds that, while both concepts are in harmonious to each other criteria-wise, but the discussion of each criterion indicates glaring differences between them since both concepts are based on different sources of law, values and underlying principles.

This article studies the civil and Islamic laws which are enforced to handle issues of misconduct by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group in Malaysia. This article is a qualitative legal study where data gathered through library research method and evaluated through analytical approach in its content. Provisions from international declarations and charters, Parliamentary acts, states' enactments, circulars and case decided by courts are scrutinized to understand the legal foundations which act as probihitory and pereventive measures towards LGBT-related activities from spreading. Findings of the analysis indicate that Islamic law provide wider scope of legal provisions compared to civil law relating to offences which involve LGBT group. However, the offences are subject to certain limitation of punishment and only applicable to Muslim offenders only. Due to the absence of specific law on LGBT from the legistalive bodies, legal enforcement bodies and public prosecutor only rely on public law; namely Penal Code, Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, Entertainment (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Act 1992 and Small Offences Act 1955. Thus, iti is hereby proposed that the Parliament and state legislative assembly shall act more progressively in drafting and approving legal provisions which are more specific and express to combat and control LGBT activities from continuing to tarnish the religious values, customs and cultures of Malaysian society.

This article discusses on the definition of subsidiary legislation in Malaysian administrative law, its advantages and how to challenge it. Subsidiary legislation is part of Malaysian legal sources that supplements the legislative function of Malaysian legal system. Although the Parliament and State Assembly are the main bodies that have been vested with the legislative power in Malaysia, other non-elected members are also conferred to exercise the same function to assist the Parliament and the State Assembly in their law making roles. The abundance of subsidiary legislation in the legal systems serve a great deal of benefits and advantages especially to ease the burden of the legislative bodies especially in dealing with the details of the law and also to gain expert views on certain issues. However the power mandated in the hands of these authorised bodies comprising of non-elected civil servants could also result in illegality and abuse of power, thus, this article attempts to outline grounds on which the subsidiary legislation can be challenged. This article is a descriptive and comparative analysis research which involves library-based method. This method is based on the analysis of various literature materials from books, articles, journals, Acts of Parliament, as well as reference to decided cases from Malaysian courts and commonwealth countries. It is the finding of this article that the court has the power of judicial review over the subsidiary legislation if the subsidiary legislation is ultra vires its conferring Act (parent Act), substantively or procedurally and the parent Act or the subsidiary legislation itself is unconstitutional. The court will look into the provisions of the parent Act and also the subsidiary legislation to determine its constitutionality and if it is within the scope of the parent act and the Federal Constitution. It is recommended that the power to enact subsidiary legislation conferred to the delegated body shall not be abused to overstep legal and constitutional boundaries and the Parliament shall not over-delegate its power to subsidiary legislation since it may be seen as abdication or ‘giving up’ its actual constitutional role i.e. to make law. Index Terms- Administrative Law; Advantages; Challenge; Subsidiary Legislation