1 Nili Cohen CV & Publications
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States
Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2010 Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States Malvina Halberstam Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Malvina Halberstam, Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States, 31 Cardozo Law Review 2393 (2010). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/68 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. JUDICIAL REVIEW, A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: ISRAEL, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION Malvina Halberstam∗ On April 26, 2009, the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law hosted a roundtable discussion, Judicial Review, a Comparative Perspective: Israel, Canada, and the United States, with prominent jurists, statesmen, academics, and practicing attorneys.∗∗ The panel was comprised of Justice Morris Fish of the Canadian Supreme Court; Justice Elyakim Rubinstein of the Israeli Supreme Court; Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Hon. Irwin Cotler, a member of the Canadian Parliament and formerly Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; Hon. Michael Eitan, a Minister in the government of Israel, a member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), and former chair of the Committee on the Constitution, Law and Justice; Professor Daniel Friedmann, formerly Minister of Justice of Israel, who proposed legislation to remedy what some view as serious problems with judicial review in Israel; Nathan Lewin, one of the most eminent attorneys in the United States, who has argued many cases before the U.S. -
2007 Israeli Democracy Index Is Dedicated to Captain Zur Zarhi from Nahalal, a Beloved Friend Who Went to War and Did Not Come Back
Auditing Israeli Democracy – 2007 Cohesion in a Divided Society Asher Arian, Nir Atmor, Yael Hadar The Israel Democracy Institute is an independent, non-partisan body on the seam of academia and politics. The Institute proposes policy recommendations and reforms for government and public administration agencies. In its plans and endeavors, the Institute strives to support the institutions of Israel’s developing democracy and consolidate its values. The Institute’s research is followed up by practical recommendations, seeking to improve governance in Israel and foster a long-term vision for a stable democratic regime adapted to the structure, the values, and the norms of Israeli society. The Institute aspires to further public discourse in Israel on the issues placed on the national agenda, to promote structural, political, and economic reforms, to serve as a consulting body to decision-makers and the broad public, to provide information, and present comparative research. Researchers at the Israel Democracy Institute are leading academics directing projects in various areas of society and governance in Israel. The IDI Press produces, markets, and distributes the results of their work in several series of books (“The Democracy Library”), policy papers, the Caesarea Forum Series, periodicals, and conference proceedings. The Guttman Center was established in its present form in 1998, when the Guttman Institute for Applied Social Research became part of the Israel Democracy Institute. Professor Louis Guttman founded the original Institute in 1949 as a pioneering center for the study of public opinion and the advancement of social science methodology. The goal of the Guttman Center is to enrich public discourse on issues of public policy through the information retrieved from the Center’s databases and through public opinion surveys conducted by the Center. -
2019 Solomon Solon 1270287
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ International criminal courts and the introduction of the Daubert standard as a mode of assessing the psychological impact of warfare on civilians a comparative perspective Solomon, Solon Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DAUBERT STANDARD AS A MODE OF ASSESSING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF WARFARE ON CIVILIANS A Comparative Perspective Solon Solomon A thesis submitted to King’s College London Dickson Poon School of Law for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Question of the Daubert Standard Application in International Criminal Law as a Mode for Assessing Warfare’s Psychological Toll on Civilians ...................................... -
When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite US Law Schools?
Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools? Pnina Lahav Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Pnina Lahav, American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools?, 10 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 653 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/579 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN MOMENT[S]: WHEN, HOW, AND WHY DID ISRAELI LAW FACULTIES COME TO RESEMBLE ELITE U.S. LAW SCHOOLS? Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-32 (July 29, 2009) Pnina Lahav This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2009.html Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1440864 Theoretical Inquiries in Law Volume 10, Number 2 July 2009 Article 13 HISTORIES OF LEGAL TRANSPLANTATIONS American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools? Pnina Lahav∗ ∗, Copyright c 2009 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1440864 American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. -
Legal Pluralism, Religious Adjudication and the State
A PLURALITY OF DISCONTENT: LEGAL PLURALISM, RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATION AND THE STATE Adam S. Hofri-Winogradow* INTRODUCTION The norms that the official legal systems of North American and European states apply do not derive directly from any religion. While some of those norms, such as some of the norms governing marriage, do originate, historically, in religion and religious law, no norms are today enforced by those legal systems because the norms are part of a specific religious legal order. And yet, adjudication according to religious norms is commonplace. In North America and Europe, the legal systems applying norms associated with specific religions to adherents of those religions are principally nonstate community tribunals. Outside this Northwestern world, state legal systems, particularly those of Muslim- majority jurisdictions, often permit religious normative materials to be applied to adherents of the relevant religions as a matter of state law. Both situations are examples of legal pluralism.' The popularity of the application of religious norms by state legal systems2 throughout much of the contemporary world raises a challenge * Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I thank Dafia Barak-Erez, Hila Ben-Eliyahu, Talia Fisher, Aharon Layish, Berachyahu Lifshitz, Menachem Mautner, Benny Porat, Amichai Radzyner, Avishalom Westreich and Eyal Zamir for their insightful comments on earlier drafts, and Ratzon Arusi, Eliezer Halle, Yechiel Kaplan, Sinai Levi, Tzvi Lifshitz, Ido Rechnitz, David Stay and Ya'acov Verhaftig for fascinating conversations. I further thank the participants of and the audience at the panel "Innovations and Developments at the Halachic Courts," held at the Israeli Law and Society Association Conference at the Hebrew University on December 25, 2008. -
Civic Identity in the Jewish State and the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism
Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2018 Shifting Priorities? Civic Identity in the Jewish State and the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism Mohamad Batal Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Batal, Mohamad, "Shifting Priorities? Civic Identity in the Jewish State and the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism" (2018). CMC Senior Theses. 1826. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1826 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College Shifting Priorities? Civic Identity in the Jewish State and the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism Submitted To Professor George Thomas by Mohamad Batal for Senior Thesis Spring 2018 April 23, 2018 ii iii iv Abstract: This thesis begins with an explanation of Israel’s foundational constitutional tension—namely, that its identity as a Jewish State often conflicts with liberal- democratic principles to which it is also committed. From here, I attempt to sketch the evolution of the state’s constitutional principles, pointing to Chief Justice Barak’s “constitutional revolution” as a critical juncture where the aforementioned theoretical tension manifested in practice, resulting in what I call illiberal or undemocratic “moments.” More profoundly, by introducing Israel’s constitutional tension into the public sphere, the Barak Court’s jurisprudence forced all of the Israeli polity to confront it. My next chapter utilizes the framework of a bill currently making its way through the Knesset—Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People—in order to draw out the past and future of Israeli civic identity. -
Israel Prize
Year Winner Discipline 1953 Gedaliah Alon Jewish studies 1953 Haim Hazaz literature 1953 Ya'akov Cohen literature 1953 Dina Feitelson-Schur education 1953 Mark Dvorzhetski social science 1953 Lipman Heilprin medical science 1953 Zeev Ben-Zvi sculpture 1953 Shimshon Amitsur exact sciences 1953 Jacob Levitzki exact sciences 1954 Moshe Zvi Segal Jewish studies 1954 Schmuel Hugo Bergmann humanities 1954 David Shimoni literature 1954 Shmuel Yosef Agnon literature 1954 Arthur Biram education 1954 Gad Tedeschi jurisprudence 1954 Franz Ollendorff exact sciences 1954 Michael Zohary life sciences 1954 Shimon Fritz Bodenheimer agriculture 1955 Ödön Pártos music 1955 Ephraim Urbach Jewish studies 1955 Isaac Heinemann Jewish studies 1955 Zalman Shneur literature 1955 Yitzhak Lamdan literature 1955 Michael Fekete exact sciences 1955 Israel Reichart life sciences 1955 Yaakov Ben-Tor life sciences 1955 Akiva Vroman life sciences 1955 Benjamin Shapira medical science 1955 Sara Hestrin-Lerner medical science 1955 Netanel Hochberg agriculture 1956 Zahara Schatz painting and sculpture 1956 Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai Jewish studies 1956 Yigael Yadin Jewish studies 1956 Yehezkel Abramsky Rabbinical literature 1956 Gershon Shufman literature 1956 Miriam Yalan-Shteklis children's literature 1956 Nechama Leibowitz education 1956 Yaakov Talmon social sciences 1956 Avraham HaLevi Frankel exact sciences 1956 Manfred Aschner life sciences 1956 Haim Ernst Wertheimer medicine 1957 Hanna Rovina theatre 1957 Haim Shirman Jewish studies 1957 Yohanan Levi humanities 1957 Yaakov -
Conference Program
Table of Contents Plenary Sessions .............................................................................. 1 SUNDAY | June 30, 2019 ................................................................... 1 MONDAY | July 1, 2019 ..................................................................... 5 TUESDAY | July 2, 2019 ................................................................... 13 Spotlight - Policy Arenas ............................................................. 19 MONDAY | July 1, 2019 ................................................................... 19 TUESDAY | July 2, 2019 ................................................................... 20 Roundtable Sessions .................................................................... 21 MONDAY | July 1, 2019 ................................................................... 21 TUESDAY | July 2, 2019 ................................................................... 23 The Herzliya Conference War Game ...................................... 26 SUNDAY | June 30, 2019 ................................................................ 26 (Closed Session) Registration will open on Sunday, June 30, at 2pm. We kindly ask all our participants to bring with them official ID documents (Israeli ID cards, Israeli driver’s license or international passports). Admittance to the Conference area with weapons will not permitted. 1 Plenary Sessions SUNDAY | June 30, 2019 14:00 Welcome & Registration 15:00 Opening Ceremony Prof. Uriel Reichman, President & Founder, IDC Herzliya Prof. -
The Herzliya Insights 2019
The Herzliya Insights 2019 Conference Conclusions Navigating Stormy Waters – Time for a New Course Iran – on a Violent Collision Course with the United States and Israel The Palestinian Arena – Fracturing Institutions and Paradigms Fissures in the National Resilience Will Israel Win the Next War? United States-Israel Relations: Put to the Test The Middle East – Instability, Uncertainty, Volatility Israel’s Relations with Sunni-Arab World – the Glass Ceiling Great Power Rivalry, the Global Economy, and Israel Russia – Friend or Foe? Possible Turning Points and Game-Changers Herzliya, January 2020 The Herzliya Insights 2019 Conference Conclusions Navigating Stormy Waters Time for a New Course Herzliya, January 2020 The Main Message Navigating Stormy Waters – Time for a New Course In recent years, Israel is experiencing a relatively improved and stable security situation. Terror has been contained to a tolerable level, the Middle East has not nuclearized, the economy is growing, and foreign relations are improving, including with Arab countries. Nevertheless, Israel faces a complex and challenging horizon that presents three basic interlocking trends: • Mounting strategic challenges in the region – topped by the Iranian threat along three dimensions (nuclear, long-range missiles, and dangerous force build-up in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen) and troubling processes in the Palestinian arena. • Widening fissures in Israel’s domestic national resilience – while domestic cohesiveness and resilience are crucial for withstanding the strategic challenges facing Israel. • Potential erosion of Israel’s relations with the United States – an alliance that is a major pillar of Israel’s national security. The external and domestic threats reinforce each other in different contexts and intensify the multidimensional challenges facing Israel. -
Auditing Israeli Democracy – 2007 Cohesion in a Divided Society
Auditing Israeli Democracy – 2007 Cohesion in a Divided Society Asher Arian, Nir Atmor, Yael Hadar The Israel Democracy Institute is an independent, non-partisan body on the seam of academia and politics. The Institute plans policy and devises reforms for government and public administration agencies, and for the institutions of democracy. In its plans and endeavors, the Institute strives to support the institutions of Israel’s developing democracy and consolidate its values. The Institute’s research work is followed up by practical recommendations, seeking to improve governance in Israel and foster a long-term vision for a stable democratic regime adapted to the structure, the values, and the norms of Israeli society. The Institute aspires to further public discourse in Israel on the issues placed on the national agenda, to promote structural, political, and economic reforms, to serve as a consulting body to decision-makers and the broad public, to provide information and present comparative research. Researchers at the Israel Democracy Institute are leading academics directing projects in various areas of society and governance in Israel. The Institute’s publications department produces, markets, and distributes the results of their work in several series of books (“The Democracy Library”), policy studies, the Caesarea Forum, periodicals, and conferences proceedings. The Guttman Center was established in its present form in 1998, when the Guttman Institute for Applied Social Research became part of the Israel Democracy Institute. Professor Louis Guttman founded the original Institute in 1949 as a pioneering center for the study of public opinion and the advancement of social science methodology. The goal of the Guttman Center is to enrich public discourse on issues of public policy through the information retrieved from the Center’s databases and through public opinion surveys conducted by the Center. -
Israel: Background and Relations with the United States
Israel: Background and Relations with the United States Carol Migdalovitz Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs August 14, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33476 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Israel: Background and Relations with the United States Summary On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence and was immediately engaged in a war with all of its neighbors. Armed conflict has marked every decade of Israel’s existence. Despite its unstable regional environment, Israel has developed a vibrant parliamentary democracy, albeit with relatively fragile governments. Early national elections were held on February 10, 2009. Although the Kadima Party placed first, parties holding 65 seats in the 120- seat Knesset supported opposition Likud party leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who was designated to form a government. Netanyahu put together a coalition comprising his own Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home), Shas, Labor, Habayet Hayehudi (Jewish Home), and the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) parties, which controls 74 Knesset seats. Israel has an advanced industrial, market economy with a large government role. Israel’s foreign policy is focused largely on its region, Europe, and the United States. Israel’s foreign policy agenda begins with Iran, which it views as an existential threat due to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and support for anti-Israel terrorists. Achieving peace with its neighbors is next. Israel concluded peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, but not with Syria and Lebanon. Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah, which then took over the south, sparked a 34-day war when it kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in July 12, 2006. -
United Against Torture (UAT) Coalition Supplementary Report For
United Against Torture (UAT) Coalition Supplementary Report For Consideration Regarding Israel’s Fourth Periodic Report to the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) Submitted April 2009 Contact: Rifat Kassis General Director Defence for Children International - Palestine Section Email: [email protected]; Tel: 972-(0)2-242-7530 ext. 102 The United Against Torture Coalition (the UAT Coalition) members participating in this report consist of 14 Palestinian and Israeli human rights NGOs1 dedicated to the progressive and substantial eradication of torture and ill-treatment in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The UAT Coalition aims to achieve this goal through coordinated documentation, reporting and exposure of incidence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Israel and the OPT with the aim of holding duty bearers to account. 1 Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; Al-Haq – Law in the Service of Man; Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights; Al-Quds University Human Rights Clinic; An Najah University Centre for Democracy and Human Rights; Defence for Children International – Palestine Section (DCI/PS); Gaza Community Mental Health Program (GCMHP); Hurriyat – Centre for Defence of Liberties and Civil Rights; Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS); Nadi Al-Asir (Palestinian Prisoners Club); Nafha Society for Defence of Prisoners and Human Rights; Mandela Institute for Human Rights and Political Prisoners; Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI); and Treatment and