Political Agreements

1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-460
Author(s):  
Gabriela Shalev
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Law

The legal debate concerning political agreements has lately won renewed interest in Israel, following some disturbing incidents that took place just prior to the establishment of the present government. These events, which were referred to by Justice Elon as “a weakness of political culture” and even “political eclipse”, have forced the High Court of Justice to deal with a number of petitions concerning political agreements over the past year. The Legislature also has had to give this matter considerable attention; the Basic Law: The Knesset, Amendment no. 12, allows for amending and even preventing disruptive phenomena such as political defection which tend to occur alongside political agreements.

scholarly journals The Constitutionality of §89a IIa of the German Criminal Code and the Concept of a Serious Violent Offense Endangering the State: The German Federal Court of Justice Decision of April 6, 2017—3 StR 326/16

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 775-786
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Zaunseder ◽  
Michelle Heblik
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
The Past ◽  
Violent Offense ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Short Summary ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice ◽  
Systematic Structure

AbstractThis Article discusses the constitutionality of the recently implemented § 89a IIa of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch—StGB) on the basis of the case 3 StR 326/16 decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on April 6, 2017. First, this Article introduces § 89a IIa of the StGB with a short summary of the events leading to the present anti-terrorist legislation in Germany and the development of the legislation over the past few decades. Second, the facts of the BGH’s case will be outlined, and an overview of the systematic structure of § 89a I, II No. 1, IIa StGB will be provided. Within this framework, the constitutionality of § 89a IIa StGB will be discussed, focusing on the prerequisite of appropriateness, with special attention paid to the requirement of reasonability and the prerequisite of legal certainty pursuant to Article 103(II) Basic Law (Grundgesetz—GG). Finally, § 89a I, II No. 1, IIa StGB will be applied to the BGH’s case after discussing the contentious legal issues regarding these doctrines. This Article concludes by discussing the BGH’s decision, which deems § 89a IIa StGB to be constitutional.

A vueltas con El Algarrobico: la historia interminable de un despropósito medioambiental

2014 ◽  
pp. 1079-1090
Author(s):  
José CUESTA REVILLA
Keyword(s):  
High Court ◽  
The Past ◽  
Natural Park ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Environmental Attack

LABURPENA: Lan honetan, El Algarrobico hotelaren inguruan jarraitutako ibilbide judizialaren balorazioa egiten da; Cabo de Gata-Níjar Parke Naturalean dago hotela (Almerian), eta ibilbide hori azkenean ingurumenaren aurkako atentatu bihurtu dela esan liteke. Izan ere, Andaluziako Justizia Auzitegi Nagusiaren azken bi epaiek —2014koak— guztiz irauli dute higiezina eraistera bideratuta zegoela zirudien prozesua, urbanizagarritzat jotzen baitute eraikina kokatuta dagoen lurzorua, eta legezkotzat jotzen baitute bere garaian emandako lizentzia. RESUMEN: En el presente trabajo se lleva a cabo una valoración del itinerario judicial seguido en relación con el hotel El Algarrobico, situado en el Parque Natural de Cabo de Gata-Níjar (Almería) y que ha acabado convirtiéndose en lo que podía denominarse un atentado medioambiental. Las dos últimas sentencias, de 2014, del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía han dado un vuelco radical a un proceso que parecía estar abocado a la demolición del inmueble puesto que califican como urbanizable el suelo en el que éste fue construido y consideran legal la licencia otorgada en su día. ABSTRACT: This work deals with an assessment of the judicial path of the Hotel El Algarrobico, located in the Natural Park of Cabo de Gata-Níjar (Almería) and that it has became what it could be called a environmental attack. Last two judgments, from 2014, by the High Court of Justice of Andalucía have changed drastically the process that seemed to be committed to the demolition of the building since they qualify the land where it was built as developable and they consider the permit granted in the past legal.

The Political Economy of Local Governance in Yemen

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-69
Author(s):  
Benoit Challand ◽  
Joshua Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
Local Governance ◽  
Local Development ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Past ◽  
Strong State ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Local Initiatives ◽  
Self Rule

This paper provides an historical exploration of local governance in Yemen across the past sixty years. It highlights the presence of a strong tradition of local self-rule, self-help, and participation “from below” as well as the presence of a rival, official, political culture upheld by central elites that celebrates centralization and the strong state. Shifts in the predominance of one or the other tendency have coincided with shifts in the political economy of the Yemeni state(s). When it favored the local, central rulers were compelled to give space to local initiatives and Yemen experienced moments of political participation and local development.

scholarly journals Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-901
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Geoffrey R. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Mara'Abe v. Prime Minister of Israel. Case No. HCJ 7957/04. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html> (English translation).Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, September 15, 2005.In Mara ‘abe v. Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court held that the routing of a portion of Israel's “security fence” in the northern West Bank violated international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ordered the Israeli government to consider alternative paths for the barrier. The Mara'abe decision expanded on the Court's earlier ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel, in which the Court ordered the rerouting of another segment of the obstacle. Mara ’abe also revealed some of the Israeli Court's views on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory— the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that construction of the barrier anywhere in occupied territory violates international law.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Keren Michaeli
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)

Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 451-511
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

451Economics, trade and finance — European Monetary Union — Fiscal sovereignty — Public debt — Monetary policy — Economic policy — European Union — Asset purchase programme — Quantitative easing — Central banks — European Central Bank — European System of Central Banks — BundesbankTreaties — Treaty-making powers — Constitutional limitations on treaty-making powers — Transfers of powers by States to intergovernmental and other transnational authorities — Whether compatible with constitutional prerogatives of national parliament — Overall budgetary responsibility — Basic Law of GermanyInternational organizations — European Union — Powers — Member States as masters of the treaties — Principle of conferral — Whether Union having competence to determine or extend its own powers — Principle of subsidiarity — Court of Justice of the European UnionRelationship of international law and municipal law — European Union law — Interpretation — Application — Judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — Weiss — Principle of proportionality — Whether application of EU law having absolute primacy — Whether German Federal Constitutional Court having absolute duty to follow judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — Compatibility with Basic Law of Federal Republic of Germany — Openness of German Basic Law to European integration — Whether purchase programme ultra vires — Whether ultra vires acts applicable in Germany — Whether having binding effect in relation to German constitutional organsJurisdiction — European Union institutions — Whether jurisdiction of German Federal Constitutional Court extending to Court of Justice of the European Union and European Central Bank — Whether acts of EU institutions subject to national constitutional review — Ultra vires review — Review of core identity of national constitution — Whether application of EU law having absolute primacy — Whether absolute duty to follow judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — The law of Germany

Institutional Performance and Political Culture: Some Puzzles about the Power of the Past

Governance ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT D. PUTNAM ◽  
ROBERT LEONARDI ◽  
RAFFAELLA Y. NANETTI
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
Institutional Performance ◽  
The Past
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document