Dr. Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Elections Disqualifications Caseselections Disqualifications Cases
The Archive Law, the GSS Law and Elections Disqualifications CasesElections Disqualifications Cases Excerptsthe Public from Legal DiscourseArguments Submitted in by AdalahIsrael to the Central Elections Committee and the Supreme Court December 2002 – January 2003 Hillel Cohen Editors’ Note The following are excerpts from the reply briefs submitted by Adalah to the Central Elections Committee and to the Supreme Court of Israel in the 2003 elections disqualification cases. In these cases, Adalah represented MK Dr. Azmi Bishara and the National Democratic Assembly; MK ‘Abd al-Malek Dahamshe and the United Arab List; and MK Dr. Ahmad Tibi and the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality-Arab Movement for Renewal List against motions to disqualify them filed by the Attorney General and numerous right-wing MKs and political parties. Adalah argued in these cases that the May 2002 amendment to the Basic Law: The Knesset is unconstitutional, in particular, with regard to the provision that any individual candidate or political party list that “support(s) the armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terrorist organization against the State of Israel” may be disqualified from running in the elections for the Knesset. Legal Problems Inherent in Section 7A(a)(3) 1 The respondents will argue that the applicants’ position regarding the application of Section 7A(a)(3) of the Basic Law: The Knesset – which refers to “support(ing) the armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization” – raises two serious legal problems. The first relates to the legal interpretation of this provision, and the second involves its retroactive application. -
The Supreme Court of Israel on 15 April 2015
Translation from the original Hebrew by Adalah Summary of decision issued by the Supreme Court of Israel on 15 April 2015 The Supreme Court of Israel HCJ 5239/11, HCJ 5392/11, HCJ 5549/11, HCJ 2072/121 Uri Avnery et al. v. Knesset et al. Concerning the constitutionality of the Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott Summary of decision An expanded panel of nine Supreme Court justices handed down a decision today (15 April 2015) on the petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott – 2011 (hereinafter: the Boycott Law, or the law). The law, enacted by the Knesset on 11 July 2011, imposes tort liability on any person who knowingly issues a public call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel, that is: anyone who calls for “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with a person, or other entity, solely because of their affiliation with the State of Israel, one of its institutions, or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic harm” (hereinafter: a call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel). The law also authorizes the minister of finance to institute regulations to restrict those calling for such boycott from participating in tenders for contracts with the state, and to deny them various benefits granted by the state. The petitioners sought to challenge the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violates various constitutional rights (primarily: the freedom of political expression, the right to equality, and the right to freedom of occupation), and does not meet the conditions defined for this purpose in the “limitation clauses” in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and in Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. -
Israel's Investigation of Alleged Violations of The
Israel’s Investigation of Alleged Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict Israel is well aware of allegations of violations of international law during Operation Protective Edge (hereinafter: the 2014 Gaza Conflict). Israel reviews complaints and other information suggesting IDF misconduct, regardless of the source. Moreover, Israel is committed to investigating fully any credible accusation or reasonable suspicion of a serious violation of the Law of Armed Conflict,1 and in fact its policy of carrying out investigations goes beyond its obligation under international law. In 2010 the Government of Israel created an independent public commission of inquiry headed by retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel and observed by international legal experts (the “Turkel Commission”), whose mandate included an assessment of Israel’s mechanisms for examining and investigating complaints and claims regarding alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. The Turkel Commission reviewed Israel’s investigations systems, including the military system of justice — which includes a multi-stage process directed by Israel’s Military Advocate General (the “MAG”), Military Courts, civilian oversight by the Attorney General of Israel, and judicial review by the Supreme Court of Israel — in light of the “general principles” for conducting an effective investigation under international law: independence, impartiality, effectiveness and thoroughness, and promptness.2 Following a careful and comprehensive review, the Turkel Commission concluded in 2013 -
Trends in Legal Formalism and the Judicial Role: Jurisprudence Meets Empirical Legal Studies
RESEARCH WORKSHOP OF THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Trends in legal formalism and the judicial role: Faculty of Law Jurisprudence meets empirical legal studies 18-20 December, 2016 Sunday, December 18th - Faculty Lounge 09:00-10:30 First Session: Opening Comments and Conceptual Debates About Formalism Chair: Prof. Michal Alberstein, Bar-Ilan University Dr. Limor Gabai-Egozi and Prof. Bryna Bogoch, Bar-Ilan University, Formalisms of Law: The Fluctuating Paths of Legal Rhetoric Prof. Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School, Rhetoric in the US Supreme Court: From Formalism to Pragmatism Prof. Dennis Kurzon, Haifa University, Sir Thomas More as a Legal Formalist Prof. Barak Medina, Hebrew University, Rules vs. Standards in Constitutional Adjudication Coffee break 11:00-12:30 Second Session: Socio-legal and Historical Aspects of Legal Formalism Chair: Dr. Ori Aronson, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Menny Mautner, Tel-Aviv University, The Decline of Formalism and the Rise of Values in Israeli Legal Culture 1980-1993-2016 Prof. Brian Tamanaha, Washington University, The Inevitability of Formalism and Realism Prof. Nir Kedar, Sapir Academic College/Bar-Ilan University, A Broader Historical Look at Legal Formalism Lunch break 14:00-15:30 Third Session: Formalism in Jewish Law Chair: Prof. Tsilly Dagan, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Yair Lorberbaum, Bar-Ilan University, Halakhah, Kabbalah and Legal Formalism Prof. Haim Shapira, Bar-Ilan University, Judicial Arbitration as an Anti- Formalistic Mechanism in the Jewish Judging System Prof. Suzanne Stone, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law/Yeshiva University, Formalism and Aesthetics: From Blackstone to Brisk Prof Adiel Schremer, Bar Ilan University, The Textualist Shift and the Rise of Formalism in Early Rabbinic Legal Thought RESEARCH WORKSHOP OF THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Trends in legal formalism and the judicial role: Jurisprudence meets empirical legal studies 16:00-17:30 Fourth Session: Reconstructions of Legal Formalism Chair: Prof. -
Justice Elyakim Rubinstein Deputy President of the Supreme Court Curriculum Vitae
בית המשפט העליון THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL Justice Elyakim Rubinstein Deputy President of the Supreme Court Curriculum Vitae 2015 Appointed Deputy President of the Supreme Court. 2012-2013 Served as Chairman of the Central Elections Committee. 2004 Appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. 1997-2003 Served as the Attorney General of Israel. In this position, he participated in negotiations with Syria (in 1999-2000) and in the Camp David Summit with the Palestinians in 2000, and as the head of the Israeli delegation to conferences on the subjects of Intolerance and Anti-Semitism (2001-2003). 1995-1997 Served as Judge at the Jerusalem District Court. 1994-1995 Served as Legal Counsel to the Ministry of Defense and Assistant to the Prime Minister, and simultaneously as chair of the Committee supervising negotiations on Agreements for implementation of the Peace Treaty with Jordan. 1986-1994 Served as Government Secretary for four different governments. As part of that position, he headed the legal team working with U.S. Government and Congress officials concerning the investigation into the Iran-Contras affair; he headed negotiation teams on the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel on Strategic Cooperation, and negotiations on various legal issues in the field of defense. He was the head of the Israeli delegation that negotiated with the Jordanian- Palestinian delegation in Madrid and Washington, and head of the Israeli delegation for negotiations on the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. He served as the first chairman of the Israel Anti-Drug Authority, and as the first chairman of the Government Forum to Monitor Anti-Semitism. -
Inventing Judicial Review: Israel and America
INAUGUARL URI AND CAROLINE BAUER MEMORIAL LECTURE INVENTING JUDICIAL REVIEW: ISRAEL AND AMERICA Robert A. Burt* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE FIRST GENERATION: TOWARD AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY .............................................. 2017 A. The Impact of the 1967 War on Israeli Jurisprudence .................................................... 2027 1. Jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories ....... 2029 2. The Knesset Acts ............................... 2034 B. The Court's Initial Response ......................... 2036 1. Shalit v. Minister of the Interior ................. 2036 2. Bergman v. Minister of Finance .................. 2043 3. Bergman and Marbury .......................... 2047 4. Jurisdiction over the Territories and Marbury .... 2049 II. THE SECOND GENERATION: THE AMERICAN WAY ...... 2051 A. The Definitive Emergence of Judicial Review in A m erica ............................................ 2051 B. The Israeli Supreme Court Charts Its Path ........... 2066 1. Israel's Dred Scott ............................... 2067 2. Judicial Injunctions to Tolerate the Intolerant ... 2077 3. The Promise and Problems of Judicial Independence ................................... 2084 C. The Convergence of Israeli and American Doctrine ... 2091 * Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University. This Article is an expanded version of the Inaugural Uri and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture delivered at the Benjamin N. Car- dozo School of Law of Yeshiva University on October 11, 1988. I am especially indebted to Justice Aharon Barak, Professor Kenneth Mann of the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, and Dean Stephen Goldstein of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law. Although none of them is responsible for the substance of this Article, without their generous assistance it would not have been written. I am also particularly grateful to two Yale Law School students, Stephen Sowle who helped me with the American historical sources and Joel Prager who gave me access to material only available in Hebrew. -
De Facto and De Jure Annexation: a Relevant Distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a Case Study
FREE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2018/2019 De facto and de jure annexation: a relevant distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a case study Author: Eugenia de Lacalle Supervisor: François Dubuisson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, our warmest thanks go to our thesis supervisor, François Dubuisson. A big part of this piece of work is the fruit of his advice and vast knowledge on both the conflict and International Law, and we certainly would not have been able to carry it out without his help. It has been an amazing experience to work with him, and we have learned more through having conversations with him than by spending hours doing research. We would like to deeply thank as well all those experts and professors that received an e-mail from a stranger and accepted to share their time, knowledge and opinions on such a controversial topic. They have provided a big part of the foundation of this research, all the while contributing to shape our perspectives and deepen our insight of the conflict. A list of these outstanding professionals can be found in Annex 1. Finally, we would also like to thank the Spanish NGO “Youth, Wake-Up!” for opening our eyes to the Israeli-Palestinian reality and sparkling our passion on the subject. At a more technical level, the necessary field research for this dissertation would have not been possible without its provision of accommodation during the whole month of June 2019. 1 ABSTRACT Since the occupation of the Arab territories in 1967, Israel has been carrying out policies of de facto annexation, notably through the establishment of settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall. -
Amnesty International Public Statement
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 15/013/2011 28 January 2011 Israeli inquiry into Gaza flotilla deaths no more than a “whitewash” Amnesty International has condemned the findings of an Israeli inquiry into last year’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla as a “whitewash” which failed to account for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. In a report published on 23 January, the Turkel Commission concluded that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) acted lawfully when they captured the Mavi Mamara on 31 May 2010, killing nine activists on board, and intercepted five other ships. Despite being nearly 300 pages long, the report crucially fails to explain how the activists died and what conclusions the Commission reached regarding the IDF’s specific actions in each case. The Commission’s failure to account for the deaths reinforces the view that the Israeli authorities are unwilling or incapable of delivering accountability for abuses of international law committed by Israeli forces. It also highlights the need for follow-up to ensure that the sharply contrasting conclusions of the International Fact-Finding Mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, which were issued on 22 September 2010, but not even mentioned by the Commission, are addressed and that the rights of victims to an effective remedy are upheld. The Turkel Commission concluded that, of the 133 incidents of force used by the IDF during the raid on the Mavi Marmara that it examined, 127 were in conformity with international law, while it had “insufficient information” to make a determination on the other six, three of which involved the use of live fire. -
The Supreme Court of Israel: a Safeguard of the Rule of Law, 5 Pace Int'l L
Pace International Law Review Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 1 January 1993 The uprS eme Court of Israel: A Safeguard of the Rule of Law Shoshana Netanyahu Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Shoshana Netanyahu, The Supreme Court of Israel: A Safeguard of the Rule of Law, 5 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 1 (1993) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol5/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Volume 5 1993 COMPARATIVE LAW BLAINE SLOAN LECTURE THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL: A SAFEGUARD OF THE RULE OF LAWt Shoshana Netanyahutt t This article was delivered as part of the Sixth Annual Blaine Sloan lecture at the Pace University School of Law on April 20, 1993. Presented in honor of Blaine Sloan, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Pace University, the lecture series is delivered each year to the University and Law School Community in order to promote scholarly debate in international law. tt Shoshana Netanyahu was a Justice on the Supreme Court of Israel from 1982 until her retirement in 1993. She has had a distinguished career as a jurist and lawyer in Israel for over four decades. Following her graduation from Jerusalem Law School in 1947, Justice Netanyahu entered private practice. During the Israeli War of Indepen- dence she served as Deputy Advocate General of the Israeli Air Force. -
The Institute of Advanced Judicial Studies in Israel
The Institute of Advanced Judicial Studies was established in 1984 in memory of the late Justice Yoel Sussman, former president of the Supreme Court of Israel. The Institute operates from offices located at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem and is granted total independence. At its inception, the Institute organized just a handful of training seminars a year, for acting judges. The number of seminars has increased over the years, and currently the Institute holds about fifty seminars per annum. The training seminars are open to all judges and each seminar is attended by 25 to 40 participants. Generally, every judge may choose which training seminars to attend. In some instances, however, judges are invited to participate in specific seminars. Every judge is entitled to seven paid training days a year and to three additional training days a year at his or her own expense. Most seminars last between two to five days. In addition, the Institute organizes a variety of one-day study seminars. The Institute's curriculum stresses the need for an efficient judicial system and therefore focuses these training seminars on increasing the efficiency of the judges' work, including their administrative tasks. In addition to training by subject, special seminars are held for courts of special jurisdiction, such as family courts and labor courts. Among the seminar topics for 2011 are the following: Court Administration, Judgment Writing, Credibility of Witnesses, Child Abuse, Immigration and Refugee Law, Class Actions, Decision- making, Game Theory and Law, and Media and the Law. Once a year, the Institute holds seminars for new judges attended by judges appointed during the previous year. -
Israel's Blockade of Gaza, the Mavi Marmara Incident, and Its Aftermath
Israel’s Blockade of Gaza, the Mavi Marmara Incident, and Its Aftermath Carol Migdalovitz Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs June 23, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41275 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Israel’s Blockade of Gaza, the Mavi Marmara Incident, and Its Aftermath Summary Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but retained control of its borders. Hamas, a U.S. State Department-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and forcibly seized control of the territory in 2007. Israel imposed a tighter blockade of Gaza in response to Hamas’s takeover and tightened the flow of goods and materials into Gaza after its military offensive against Hamas from December 2008 to January 2009. That offensive destroyed much of Gaza’s infrastructure, but Israel has obstructed the delivery of rebuilding materials that it said could also be used to manufacture weapons and for other military purposes. Israel, the U.N., and international non-governmental organizations differ about the severity of the blockade’s effects on the humanitarian situation of Palestinian residents of Gaza. Nonetheless, it is clear that the territory’s economy and people are suffering. In recent years, humanitarian aid groups have sent supply ships and activists to Gaza. However, Israel directs them to its port of Ashdod for inspection before delivery to Gaza. In May 2010, the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement and the pro-Hamas Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund organized a six-ship flotilla to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and to break Israel’s blockade of the territory. -
Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism Within the Law
Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within the Law Volume Two 2004-2005 Contents Introduction 5 Israel's Security Fence 7 HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council 7 v. The Government of Israel HCJ 7957/04 Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara'abe 62 v. The Prime Minister of Israel Safe Access to Rachel's Tomb 150 HCJ 1890/03 Bethlehem Municipality et Al 150 v. The State of Israel - Ministry of Defense The "Early Warning" Procedure 183 HCJ 3799/02 Adalah 183 v. GOC Central Command, IDF Prisoner Release 209 HCJ 1671/05 Almagor - Organization of Terrorism Victims 209 v. The Government of Israel Administrative Detention 218 HCJ 11026/05 A 218 v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Areas Introduction This volume is a compilation of several important cases heard by the Supreme Court of Israel on terrorism, security activities and Israeli policy in the West Bank. The previous volume of “Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within the Law,” reported on cases from 1997 to 2004. This successor volume contains cases from 2004 and 2005. The years 2004 and 2005 were significant in the development of Israel’s security policy. First, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, removing Jewish settlements and its army presence in the area. Second, these years saw a marked increase in the building of a security fence meant to impede terrorist movement into Israel from the West Bank. Diplomatic efforts were undertaken; a summit was held between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, on February 8, 2005.