Israel Supreme Court: Physicians for Human Rights et al. v. Almoj and the State of Israel

2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 880-883
Author(s):  
Jeffery K. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
State Of Israel

Human Rights and National Security

1989 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 375-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itzhak Zamir
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
State Of Israel

The State of Israel came into being forty years ago. Its Declaration of Independence proclaimed that the State “shall guarantee complete equal social and political rights to all its citizens without regard to religion, race or sex”. At the time there was a war being waged for Israel's independence, a war which is not yet over. The threat to Israel's security, both from within and without, is still very real. The struggle for security has been going on, unabated, for forty years, and it exacts a price. Among other things, it exacts a price in human rights. Freedom of expression, for example, is subject to military censorship. As a British judge once remarked, war is not waged in accord with the principles of the Magna Carta.

The Application of Presumptions to the Derivative forms of an Offence

1968 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Z. Feller
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Israel

Both the facts of The State of Israel v. Siman Tov, and the solution adopted in that case by the Supreme Court, raise, it is felt, a number of legal problems which warrant particular attention.The respondent, Siman Tov, owner of a grocer's shop, sold goods worth IL. 6,000 on credit to someone called Pressman. When Siman Tov requested payment from Pressman, the latter offered him U.S. $4,000 which Siman Tov was to deposit with a third party of his own choice in return for a loan of IL. 12,000, on the understanding that Siman Tov would deduct the money owing to him from this last sum and hand over the balance of IL. 6,000 to Pressman. Siman Tov accepted the offer and received from Pressman a package containing 4,000 ostensibly genuine dollar banknotes. He then approached a neighbour, Binat, who agreed to accept the dollars as security for a loan of the equivalent sum in Israeli pounds. On examining the package and finding that the dollars were counterfeit, Binat returned them to Siman Tov and refused to go on with the transaction. Siman Tov for his part had believed the notes to be genuine until Binat's disclosure.

Historical Adjudication: Courts of Law, Commissions of Inquiry, and “Historical Truth”

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asher Maoz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
The State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Commissions Of Inquiry ◽  
Historical Truth ◽  
State Of Israel

When the State of Israel was established and the Supreme Court inaugurated in Jerusalem, dozens of Christian clerics implored President Smoira to allow the Supreme Court, as the successor of the Great Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court during the time of Roman rule, to retry Jesus Christ and thereby rectify the injustice caused to him.

scholarly journals Mr. Suresh and the Evil Twin

Refuge ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Audrey Macklin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Security ◽  
September 11 ◽  
The State ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Substantial Risk

In Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Ahani v. MCI, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that removing a refugee accused of terrorism to a country where he or she would face a substantial risk of torture or similar abuse would virtually always violate the individual’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Court deserves praise for vindicating fundamental human rights over competing claims of national security, coming so close on the heels of September 11, the victory is in certain respects more apparent than real. Given the strong endorsement of judicial deference to the exercise of Ministerial discretion in national security matters, the Court leaves the state wide scope to circumvent the spirit of the judgment while adhering to its letter.

The Cosmopolitan and the National

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The State ◽  
Jewish Question ◽  
American Jews ◽  
World War ◽  
American Jewry ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Creation ◽  
State Of Israel

This chapter covers the period between World War II and 1967. In many ways 1948 was a decisive moment in the foreign policies of American Jews. This is the year that two different solutions to the Jewish Problem and the Jewish Question took firm institutional shape—the State of Israel and the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. American Jews were involved in both developments. In retrospect, two elements stand out in this period. After decades of worrying about the tensions between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, they began to relax. It also is surprising how little the creation of Israel affected American Jewry, and that tepidness stems partly from the fact that American Jews had never been die-hard nationalists.

Enforcement of Divorce Judgments in Jewish Courts in Israel: The Interaction Between Religious and Constitutional Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yehiel S. Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
Do So

In the State of Israel, Rabbinical courts are granted sole jurisdiction in the adjudication of marriage and divorce of Jews. In these courts, the husband presents the divorce writ of Jews, the get, to his wife on the occasion of their divorce at the end of the adjudication process. When Jews sue for divorce in Rabbinical courts, the courts occasionally determine that the man should grant his wife a get or that the wife should accept the get granted by her husband. Sometimes one spouse disobeys the ruling. Although the Rabbinical courts occasionally impose sanctions in an attempt to enforce divorce judgments, they are generally reluctant to do so. The implementation of inappropriate measures can lead to the conclusion that a given divorce is in fact a legally ineffectual coerced divorce. Consequently, the Jewish courts occasionally delay the imposition of these sanctions out of concern that inappropriate coercive measures invalidate the get, rendering the couple still legally married. The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled, though, that the Rabbinical courts in Israel should act in light of the constitutional principles in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. However, the Supreme Court of Israel has not clearly or specifically addressed the balance between the rights and obligations of the husband and wife in the process of enforcing divorce judgments, neither before nor after the enactment of the of the two important constitutional Basic Laws enacted in 1992. A detailed policy analysis of the sanctions against recalcitrant spouses in Rabbinical courts in Israel—in light of the principles of Jewish and constitutional law in the country—has not yet been undertaken. The aim of this essay is therefore to present the appropriate formula pertaining to the imposition of sanctions against recalcitrant spouses given the principles of Jewish and constitutional law. The formula is presented in light of constitutional law in Israel. However, it is also applicable in other countries with similar constitutional legislation, such as Canada, where legislation sometimes allows for the civil enforcement of Jewish divorce.

scholarly journals Jews Claim on Masjid Aqsa; Historical and Sharῑ’ah Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-80
Author(s):  
Dr. Riaz Ahmad Saeed ◽  
Dr. Syed Muhammad Shahid Tarmizi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
The State ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Sacred Place ◽  
Islamic History ◽  
Basic Reason ◽  
Religious Importance ◽  
State Of Israel

Palestine’s issue has been one of the most vibrant issues of the Muslim Ummah thou out the Islamic history.  It has contracted more attraction and reflection in contemporary era due to its sensitivity and global politics.  Masjid Aqsa is considered as a scared and blessed place for Muslims due to prophets’ birth and death places, and also station of Isrā and M’erāj (A sacred journey of the Holy Prophet ﷺ) from Makah to Aqsa and Aqsa to heaven with Allah’s meeting of the last Prophet (ﷺ). Moreover, this place is equally significant for Muslims and Jews communities both for their religious claims and commitments. Jews made claim on Masjid Aqsa due to its historical and religious importance. Most interesting thing is that, where Masjid Aqsa is a blessed and sacred place as well as, it is a basic reason of conflict and dispute between Muslims and Jews since establishment of the State of Israel. Jews claim, here was temple of Suleiman (A.S) under the foundations of Masjid Aqsa and Muslims claim, it is blessed and sacred masjid which was first Qiblah of Muslims and Haram also. Historically and religiously it is right of Muslims and Jews are hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslim which is wrong and violations of the Muslims religious and human rights. This study is an effort to analyze the historical and religious arguments of Muslims and Jews about ownership of the Masjid Aqsa and presents a solution regarding Palestine issue in contemporary era. The analytical, historical and comparative approaches have been adopted in this research with qualitative approach.

Keyu v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (U.K. Sup. Ct.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-581
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Public Inquiry

On November 25, 2015, the U.K. Supreme Court dismissed a case in which the British Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and Defense failed to hold a public inquiry into an atrocity committed in 1948 by British troops in the British protectorate of Malaya, today Malaysia. The case is of particular interest because it concerns the obligations of states for atrocities committed in the past, before their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention) or a comparable treaty, entered into force. Whereas the principle of the nonretroactivity of treaties protects a state from responsibility for acts committed before the human rights treaty entered into force for that state, the issue in this case was whether the state nonetheless had an obligation to investigate the crimes of the past.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document