From promise to retrenchment: On the changing landscape of Israeli constitutionalism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Shinar ◽  
Barak Medina ◽  
Gila Stopler
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Israeli Society ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Revolution

Abstract Israeli constitutionalism has long interested comparative constitutional law scholars, whether due to its geopolitical status, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, its internal divisions, or its unique constitutional evolution. Unlike many other countries that have ratified constitutions after the Second World War, Israel was established as a parliamentary democracy, with an explicit intention to ratify a constitution at a later stage. This did not happen. Instead, it underwent a “constitutional revolution” announced by its Supreme Court. Fitting a revolution, much of comparative constitutional law scholarship has focused on this pivotal moment. The articles in this symposium depart from the scholarship focused on that moment. They seek to critically understand what has become of Israeli constitutionalism in the past decade. In this introduction, we highlight several transformations and features which we believe are essential if one is to understand the extant constitutional order in Israel. These should be understood as background conditions against which Israeli constitutionalism is operating. They include the strengthening of judicial review alongside rising political resistance to the Court’s power; populism in political discourse targeting rule of law institutions; the erosion of individual rights alongside the strengthening of nationalist elements; and increasing divisions inside Israeli society. These challenge the idea of a successful constitutional revolution in terms of its inherent promise to better protect individual rights and safeguard the rule of law. In describing these features, we seek to situate the Supreme Court, judicial review, and the legal-constitutional order generally, in the larger sphere of Israeli society and politics.

Part V Rights and Freedoms, B Rights and Freedoms under the Charter, Ch.36 Freedom of Religion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berger Benjamin L
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
State Neutrality ◽  
The Supreme Court

This chapter examines freedom of religion in the Canadian Constitution. After locating the modern protection of freedom of religion within Canadian constitutional history, the chapter explores the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of that right, drawing particular attention to how constitutional law defines and understands religion itself. The chapter then turns to three themes that have emerged as central in the freedom of religion jurisprudence, but that also reflect broader issues within Canadian constitutionalism: the instability of the public/private divide as a means of analysing constitutional problems, the tension between individual rights and regard for collective and community interests, and the paradoxes involved in the aspiration for state neutrality. Ultimately, the chapter argues that freedom of religion offers a unique avenue into understanding the deeper themes, tensions, ideologies, and politics at work in the Canadian state, as well as the history and logic of its constitutional order.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis terhadap Legalitas Qanun Aceh No. 6/2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-148
Author(s):  
Endri Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Unitary State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

Penelitian ini berupaya memaparkan legalitas Qanun Aceh Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat (Qanun Jinayah) dalam konstruksi hukum tata negara Indonesia. Untuk menganalisis hal tersebut, penelitian ini akan meninjau legalitas Qanun Jinayah dari dua sudut pandang, yaitu formalitas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan dan konsep negara kesatuan. Qanun Jinayah menuai banyak perdebatan disebabkan kedudukannya sebagai peraturan daerah (perda) namun bermateri muatan pidana Islam (jinayah) yang sama sekali belum diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di level nasional. Tahun 2015, Qanun Jinayah dilakukan uji materiil ke Mahkamah Agung oleh Perkumpulan Masyarakat Pembaharuan Peradilan Pidana (ICJR) namun permohonan uji materiil ini dinyatakan tidak dapat diterima dengan alasan prematur (belum waktunya). Analisis yuridis dari perspektif hukum ketatanegaraan ini penting dilakukan mengingat legalitas sebuah peraturan perundang-undangan menentukan validitas dan kekuatan berlakunya. Yuridical Analysis of the Legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law This research attempts to describe the legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law (Qanun Jinayah) in the construction of Indonesian constitutional law. To analyze it, this study will examine the legality of Qanun Jinayah from two perspectives, those are the formality of the formulation of legislation and the concept of a unitary state. Qanun Jinayah gets  a lot of debate because of its position as a Regional Regulation (Peraturan Daerah), but the material of Islamic criminal content (Jinayah) which has not been regulated in national legislation. In 2015, Qanun Jinayat is subjected to a judicial review to the Supreme Court by the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), but this petition is declared unacceptable on a premature reason (unspecified). Judicial analysis from the perspective of constitutional law is important to do due to the legality of a legislation determines the validity and strenght of the law.

Part VI Constitutional Theory, D The Role of Constitutional Principles in Canadian Constitutional Law, Ch.47 Constitutional Principles in the Secession Reference

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leclair Jean
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Constitutional Changes ◽  
Political Compromises

In Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the unwritten constitutional principles of federalism and democracy dictated that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province gave rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the federation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. To understand this astonishing decision, the author first examines how, over time, in Canada and Quebec, issues of identity(ies), constitutional law, and democracy came to be formulated in absolutist terms, making political compromises next to impossible. Only then does he analyse the Supreme Court’s decision and attempts to explain why the latter chose to decide as it did.

scholarly journals Sovereign Immunity and Interstate Government Tort

2021 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Louise Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Power

This paper argues that the Supreme Court made a serious mistake last term, when, in a case of interstate government tort, it tore up useful options that should be available to each state for the rare cases in which they would be of service. In seeking to insulate a state from liability when its employee intrudes on a sister state’s territory and causes injury there, the Court stripped every state of power, in cases of interstate government tort, to try injuries occurring on its own territory to its own residents—an unprecedented disregard of a state’s acknowledged traditional interests. Indeed, the Court went beyond interstate government tort and seemed to say that the Constitution prohibits litigation against a state in all cases, whether to enforce state or federal law, whether in state or federal courts. It is argued that the Court’s originalist and structural arguments cannot withstand scrutiny. Moreover, the Court’s position, if firmly established, would balk the actual interests even of a state as defendant. The states typically do see a need to meet their tort responsibilities. Real damage has been done, but it is argued that conservative and liberal views on judicial review of government action in time may well converge to put an end to judicial abnegation of the duty to place government at all levels under the rule of law.

From an unconstitutional constitutional amendment to an unconstitutional constitution? Lessons from Honduras

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID E LANDAU ◽  
ROSALIND DIXON ◽  
YANIV ROZNAI
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
The Political ◽  
Potential Utility ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
Global Constitutionalism

Abstract:The unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has emerged as a highly successful, albeit still controversial, export in comparative constitutional law. The doctrine has often been defended as protecting a delegation from the people to the political institutions that they created. Other work has noted the doctrine’s potential utility in guarding against abusive constitutionalism. In this article, we consider how these justifications fare when expanded to encompass claims against the original constitution itself, rather than a later amendment to the text. That is, beyond the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine, can or should there be a doctrine of an unconstitutional constitution? Our question is spurred by a puzzling 2015 case from Honduras where the Supreme Court held an unamendable one-term limit on presidential terms, as well as protective provisions punishing attempts to alter that limit, to be unconstitutional. What is particularly striking about the case is that these provisions were not later amendments to the constitution, but rather parts of the original 1982 constitution itself. Thus, this article examines the possibility of ‘an unconstitutional constitution’, what we predict to be the next trend in global constitutionalism.

Administrative Law: Revolution or Evolution?

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 356-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itzhak Zamir
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
As If

Professor David Kretzmer has reviewed the development of administrative law in Israel and reached the conclusion that a revolution has occurred. The revolution manifests itself in the substantial widening of the scope of judicial review over administrative acts. For example, the Supreme Court is now willing to review the legality of parliamentary proceedings. This revolution, in his opinion, reflects a change in the conception of the Court's function in this realm. In the past the Court saw itself as limited to the function of deciding controversies between two opposing parties. Today, it is as if another function has been added, and the Court perceives itself as the guardian of the rule of law. Therefore, it is likely to become actively engaged in protecting the rule of law and to invalidate a governmental decision even absent a controversy in the traditional sense. The Court acts in this manner without explaining the basis or the reason for the role that it has assumed. Thus, the question may well arise whether this revolution is legitimate. On the basis of Professor Kretzmer's comments one may ask if indeed the Court, in the struggle over the rule of law, has taken on a function not its own, and in doing so itself infringed upon the rule of law.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

The Israeli Unfinished Constitutional Revolution: Has the Time Come for Protecting Economic and Social Rights?

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 299-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Rabin ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Interpretive Strategies ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article addresses the constitutional discourse surrounding the status of economic and social rights in Israel. It examines the principal interpretive strategies adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to the 1992 basic laws (in particular, with respect to the right to human dignity) and criticizes the Court's reluctance to apply analogous strategies to incorporate economic and social rights into Israeli constitutional law. Potential explanations for this biased approach are also critically discussed. The ensuing outcome is a constitutional imbalance in Israeli law, which perpetuates the unjustified view that economic and social rights are inherently inferior to their civil and political counterparts, and puts in question Israel's compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, encouraging recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the YATED and Marciano judgments, indicate growing acceptance on the part of the Court of the role of economic and social rights in Israeli constitutional law, and raise hopes for a belated judicial change of heart concerning the need to protect at least a ‘hard core’ of economic and social rights. Still, the article posits that the possibilities of promoting the constitutional status of economic and social rights through case-to-case litigation are limited and calls for the renewal of the legislation procedures of draft Basic Law: Social Rights in the Knesset.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document