The Secret German Sources of the Israeli Supreme Court

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fania Oz-Salzberger ◽  
Eli Salzberger
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Interview with Omar Shakir

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Noura Erakat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Rutgers University ◽  
Human Rights Advocacy ◽  
University Professor ◽  
The Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

In late November 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Interior's order to deport Human Rights Watch (HRW) director for Israel and Palestine, Omar Shakir. The court based its decision on a 2017 amendment to Israel's 1952 Entry into Israel Law enabling the government to refuse entry to foreigners who allegedly advocate for the boycott of Israel. The same law was invoked to deny entry to U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the summer of 2019. The campaign against Shakir began almost immediately after he was hired by HRW in 2016, and the court's decision marked the culmination of a multi-year battle against the deportation order. In this interview, JPS Editorial Committee member, Rutgers University professor, and author Noura Erakat discusses the details of his case with Shakir in an exchange that also examines the implications of the case for human rights advocacy, in general, and for Palestinians, in particular. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

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.

Capacities and Inadequacies: A Look at the Two Separation Barrier Cases

2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 230-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Analysis Process ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Comparison between the two decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court on the legality of Israel's West Bank controversial separation barrier illustrates some of the inherent differences between national and international legal proceedings. The note critically assesses these differences and advocates a more comity based framework of cooperation between national and international courts. Specifically, the note argues that the fact-gathering and fact-analysis process demonstrated in the Hague Advisory Opinion is problematic, as were the Court's refusal to show any deference to the Israeli authorities and empathy towards the Israeli public. These deficiencies reduce the persuasiveness of the Opinion and render its acceptance by Israel less likely. At the same time, the failure of the Israeli Supreme Court to address the link between the route of the barrier and the alleged illegality of the settlement detracts from the normative value of the judgment and highlight the political constrains in which domestic courts operate. As a result, resort to a comity-based framework in which the national and international courts strive to draw upon each other's institutional advantages in the fields of fact-finding, compliance-pull and international law expertise would have been beneficial.

scholarly journals The Enigmatic But Unique Nature of the Israeli Legal System

2013 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Platsas
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Mixed System ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Cultural Traditions ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
The World ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Affairs

The Israeli legal system is unique in that it straddles the two otherwise opposing worlds of tradition and innovation. This creates an enigma for the comparatist, making the exploration of this system an onerous and challenging task. The author wishes to maintain that the system in question is highly innovative and ascribes this quality to the proactive character of the Israeli Supreme Court, whose activism has had a major impact on the character of the domestic system as a whole. While the author explores the reasons why this has been the case, one of his main concerns in this paper will be to examine the innovative character of the Israeli Supreme Court per se, in comparison with equivalent courts in other parts of the world. In addition the author will seek to establish inter alia the character of the Israeli legal system by focusing on the three different elements that co-exist in the Israeli socio-legal structure (the Jewish element vis-à-vis the Arab element; the Liberal element vis-à-vis the Orthodox element within the Jewish community; and the Civilian element vis-à-vis the Common law element). The author wishes to posit that the amalgamation of different legal and cultural traditions in Israel created a sui generis state of affairs for the legal system as a whole. This results in an overall systemic-methodological amalgamation which does not occur elsewhere in the world. The article concludes that the enigmatic and innovative characteristics of the Israeli legal system derive from the novel way in which the legal mix has occurred in this system (as opposed to the ingredients of the elements in the mix). In this respect, Israel may have contributed much to the reinvigoration of the modern comparative law agenda, and it may continue to do so in the future, as the system is not one of legal stasis (a mixed system) but one of legal kinesis (a mixing system).

On Target? The Israeli Supreme Court and the Expansion of Targeted Killings

2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (8) ◽  
pp. 1873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen E. Eichensehr
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document