The New Basic Laws on Human Rights: A Mini-Revolution in Israeli Constitutional Law?

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kretzmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Way

In 1992 the Israeli Knesset enacted the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. These basic laws, as chapters in Israel's emerging formal Constitution, have opened the way for judicial review of parliamentary legislation that violates human rights. Opposition from some political quarters prevented inclusion in the basic laws of some rights protected under modern constitutions and human rights treaties. However, the rights protected include ‘human dignity’, a term that can be broadened by judicial interpretation so as to include violations of rights not specifically mentioned in the basic laws. The basic laws lay down a balancing test for deciding whether restrictions on protected rights are legitimate. All restrictions must be prescribed by a law that befits Israel as a Jewish and democratic State, that was enacted for a worthy purpose and that meets the proportionality test.

scholarly journals Necessary Intrusion or Criminalising the Innocent? An Exploration of Modern Criminal Vetting

2012 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Soft Materials ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
West Midlands ◽  
Subsequent Application ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Proportionality Test

This article considers the processes of criminal vetting and outlines the legislative framework allowing such disclosures and subsequent judicial interpretation of that framework. The focus is on disclosure of non-conviction (so-called ‘soft’) materials on ‘enhanced’ certificates and subsequent challenges to those disclosures at judicial review. Key cases are analysed, including R (on the application of X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (2004) and R (on the application of L) (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (2009). The proportionality test in R (L) is noted and its subsequent application in the recent decisions of R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011) and R (on the application of B) v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary (2011) is scrutinised. The article also highlights interference in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy) and questions whether interference can be justified, and whether the present judicial focus on right of representations in such cases is misplaced.

Constitutional Principles and Criminal Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 84-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mordechai Kremnitzer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
New Era ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

The enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom marks the beginning of a new era in Israeli law. This is a fitting opportunity to sketch an initial outline for the relationship between the constitution and the substantive criminal law, and the effect of constitutional principles on penal law. The truth be told, the constitutional principles already existed prior to the enactment of the Basic Law. And if, for example, we examine Prof. Feller's approach to criminal law, we cannot but be impressed by the highly developed constitutional element. Nevertheless, Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom does provide an excellent excuse for addressing the subject. Moreover, its enactment paves the way for certain interpretive changes in Israeli penal law, and because it allows for judicial review of the legislature of the future, some clarification is called for as to the limits of legislative power in the field of criminal law in light of fundamental constitutional principles.Basic to constitutional law and criminal law is a shared image of human beings. It is a conception of human beings as “morally” autonomous, with the basic faculty to understand reality and distinguish right from wrong, able to contribute to developing social norms and to understand and internalize them, competent to decide how to act and capable of realizing that decision.

scholarly journals “OBJEKTFORMEL” – EVENTUAL ACTS OF DAMAGE TO HUMAN DIGNITY

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Izabela Bratiloveanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Categorical Imperative ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Law ◽  
First Time

 The Object formula („Objecktformel”) has been designed and developed in the mid century XX by Günter Dürig, starting from the second formula of Kant's categorical imperative. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany took the formula and applied it for the first time in the case of the telephone conversations of December 15, 1970. The Object formula („Objecktformel”) was taken from the German constitutional law and applied in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Liberdade e Direitos Humanos no Pensamento de Richard Price

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (25) ◽  
pp. 119-145
Author(s):  
José Gomes André ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Expression ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

This paper is concerned with the political philosophy of Richard Price, analysing the way this author has developed the concept of liberty and the problem of human rights. The theme of liberty will be interpreted in a double perspective: a) in a private dimension, that sets liberty in the inner side of the individual; b) in a public dimension, that places it in the domain of a manifest action of the individual. We will try to show how this double outlook of liberty is conceived under the optics of a necessary complementarity, since liberty, which is primarily understood as a feature of the subject taken as an individual, acquires only a full meaning when she becomes efective in a comunitary field, as a social and political expression. The concept of human rights will appear located in this analysis, being defined simultaneously as condition and expression of the human dignity and happiness, at the same time natural attributes of an individual that should be cultivated and public effectiveness that contributes to the development of society.

scholarly journals Prawa i godność człowieka we współczesnej bioetyce

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-212
Author(s):  
Wojciech Bołoz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Ethical Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
The World ◽  
Independent Life ◽  
The Way

In contemporary bioethics dominate two trends dealing with two basic ethical solutions. First of them is utilitarianism concerning utility as a criterion of judging between what is right and what is wrong. The second trend applies to human rights and human dignity, which are to be obeyed without any exceptions. Utilitarianism protects the strong and prosperous people in society and excludes those who are weak and not capable of independent life. The concept of human dignity protects each and every human being including the weakest ones. It is therefore characterized by real humanitarianism. In addition, it has one more outstanding virtue; in the contemporary world, it is the most widespread and understandable ethical code. It enables people of different civilizations to communicate with understandable ethical language. In the world constantly undergoing global processes, it is a great value. Although there are a number of discussions concerning the way of understanding human dignity and human rights, their universal and ethical meaning; there are certain international acts of law concerning biomedicine that support the concept of human dignity as the most adequate concept for the contemporary bioethics. As an example, the European Convention on Bioethics can be taken. The article includes the most significant topics concerning understanding, history, and application of law and human dignity in bioethics.

Moral Obligations, or Why We Should Help People Even If We Don’t Like Them

No Refuge ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 50-75
Author(s):  
Serena Parekh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Moral Perspective ◽  
Philosophy And Religion ◽  
The Way

This chapter argues that Western liberal democracies have a moral obligation to rethink the way that refugees are treated during their displacement and to ensure they have access to the minimum conditions of human dignity. Yet many people find the language of morality uncomfortable or inappropriate when it comes to refugees. Others deny that morality is real and makes legitimate demands on us. This chapter responds to these concerns and gives an overview of the concept of a moral obligation by looking at its roots in philosophy and religion. The chapter examines the consequentialist, Kantian, religious, and human rights grounds for morality in order to demonstrate why a moral perspective is fundamental to addressing the crisis that refugees experience. This chapter makes clear that morality is not merely personal but can and must be extended globally. Countries must take their moral obligations to refugees seriously.

17. Irrationality and Proportionality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Rights Issue

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review, and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non Human Rights Act judicial review cases but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document