This article explores the institutionalization of the Islamic governance principles of adl (justice), shufra (consultation), muhasbah (accountability), maqasid (public interest), and stewardship in Pakistan and Malaysia. A corpus of 2000 current documentary resources was compiled. The analysis reveals two different pathways. Malaysia has placed more stress on procedural formalism: compulsory consultations with published minutes and response to comments, earlier audits with more prominent follow-through, and ex-post facto reasoning (which invariably indicates constitutional preeminence) to cope with civil Sharīah overlaps. Pakistan more frequently mobilizes adl and public interest through adjudication and public-interest litigation, which produces salient precedents and access via legal-aid references, but with less routinization of consultative and stewardship protections in social and family-law arenas. Our suggested reforms include standardized consultation windows and reason-giving, cross-system standing reference procedures, maqasid-congruent public scorecards in priority sectors, and a new module we call neo-Sufi accountability.

The Qazi-led dispute resolution, Jirga and Panchayat forums of informal justice continue to play a significant role in Pakistan as they offer cheaper, quicker, and more culturally intelligible channels of resolving disputes where formal courts are sluggish, expensive, and physically remote. This paper discusses nature of those mechanisms as parallel alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or a constitutional issue. The mixed-method study was based on an analysis of doctrinal rights and a qualitative mapping of practice of forums, which allows determining the procedural fairness, pathways of enforcement, and impact of rights on vulnerable groups. The evidence indicates that such forums can only be considered as legitimate ADR in cases where those involved join in proceedings, which are truly voluntary, such results are not punitive and significant exit to state courts is maintained. The article suggests controlled integration by means of court-mediated integration, minimum protection and prohibition of punitive and coercive measures. 

The counter-terrorist financing (CFT) and the anti-money laundering (AML) regime is one of the broadest systems of global regulatory governance which integrates commitments in the form of binding treaties, soft law standards, and transnational networks of enforcement. This paper follows its development since the disjointed structure of the 1980s to the modern day issues of digital finance. It shows that AML/CFT governance is a hybrid order, which combines hierarchical treaties, FATF soft law, regulatory networks, and reputational incentives, through doctrinal analysis of the Vienna Convention (1988), Palermo Convention (2000), UNCAC (2003), and the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999). Even though financial action taskforce (FATF) does not have a formal treaty power, it enjoys de facto normative power due to compliance pressures. Based on FATF mutual evaluation (2013-2024), the article identifies the continuous disparity between technical compliance and operational quality, especially in the developing states, and suggests a model of reform to reconcile the norm diffusion with the ability to substantially enforce the rules.