DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 Solomon Solon 1270287

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 ....................................... 11 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Importance and Contribution of the Thesis............................................................. 22 1.3 The Thesis Method ......................................................................................................... 27 1.4 The Thesis Structure....................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 2: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals and the Assessment of Warfare’s Psychological Impact upon Civilians ...................................................................................... 37 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 37 2.2 Warfare’s Psychological Civilian Impact and the ICTY ............................................... 40 2.3 The Assessment of Warfare’s Psychological Impact in the Realm of the ICTR ........... 48 2.4 Warfare’s Psychological Civilian Impact and the ICC .................................................. 55 2.5 The Lack of Reliable Standards in Judges’ Conclusions: The Impact for the Defendant’s Rights and the Integrity of the Judicial Process............................................... 56 2.6 The Current Judicial Approach and its Impact on the Rights of the Defendant ............ 58 2.7 The Current Judicial Approach and its Impact on the Wider Integrity of the Judicial Process .................................................................................................................................. 60 2.8 The Assessment of Warfare’s Psychological Impact and the ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Proof Requirement ........................................................................................................................... 67 2 2.9 International Criminal Courts and the Mental Harm Discussion Impact on Domestic War Crimes trials ........................................................................................................................... 73 2.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 75 Chapter 3: Addressing the Inconsistency: The Assessment of Warfare’s Psychological Civilian Impact and the Question of Whether an International Criminal Law Principle can be Established ............................................................................................................................... 76 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 76 3.2 The General Principles of Law as a Source of International Law ................................. 78 3.3 The General Principles of Law as a Source of International Criminal Law .................. 82 3.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 4: The Daubert Standard in the U.S. Legal Order ..................................................... 92 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 92 4.2 The Daubert Standard: Essence and Origins .................................................................. 93 4.3 Criticism of the Daubert Standard ................................................................................ 103 4.4 Acceptance of the Daubert Standard in U.S. State and Federal Practice and Jurisprudence ...................................................................................................................... 109 4.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 110 Chapter 5: The Daubert Standard in the Common Law Jurisdictions ................................... 112 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 112 5.2 England and Wales ....................................................................................................... 113 5.3 Beyond the Oceans: The Assessment of Expert Evidence and the Impact of English Law on other Commonwealth Nations ................................................................................................ 124 3 5.4 The Case of Ireland and Israel and the Question of the Daubert Standard Application in non-Commonwealth countries ............................................................................................... 145 5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 155 Chapter 6: The Daubert Standard Beyond the Common Law World..................................... 156 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 156 6.2 The Daubert Standard in Inquisitorial Criminal Jurisdictions in Europe ..................... 157 6.2.1 Germany ................................................................................................................ 157 6.2.2 France .................................................................................................................... 160 6.2.3 The Netherlands ..................................................................................................... 163 6.2.4 Greece .................................................................................................................... 165 6.2.5 Spain ...................................................................................................................... 167 6.3 The Daubert Standard Beyond the Common Law/Continental Law Divisions: Europe, the Far East, and Latin America ......................................................................................... 171 6.3.1 The Daubert Standard and the Transition from the Inquisitorial to the Adversarial System: Italy and Poland as Case Studies in the European Continent ........................... 175 6.3.2 The Daubert Standard and the Transition from the Inquisitorial to the Adversarial System: China, Japan, and South Korea as Case Studies in the Far East ....................... 181 6.3.3 The Daubert Standard and the Transition from the Inquisitorial to the Adversarial System: Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Chile as Case Studies in Latin America ........... 189 6.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 201 4 Chapter 7: International Criminal Courts and their Institutional Capacity to Engage with Mental Health Experts: A Look at the Stages beyond the Main Trial ....................................................... 202 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 202 7.2 International Criminal Judges and the Resort to Mental Health Experts in the Sentencing Phase................................................................................................................................... 206 7.2.1 The ICTY and the Mental Health Experts’ Role in the Sentencing Phase .................... 209 7.2.2 The ICC and the Mental Health Experts’ Role in the Sentencing Phase ......................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Justice in an Open World – the Role Of
    E c o n o m i c & Social Affairs The International Forum for Social Development Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations Sales No. E.06.IV.2 ISBN 92-1-130249-5 05-62917—January 2006—2,000 United Nations ST/ESA/305 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS Division for Social Policy and Development The International Forum for Social Development Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations asdf United Nations New York, 2006 DESA The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates and analyses a wide range of economic, social and environ- mental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint course of action to address ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (iii) it advises inter- ested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy frameworks devel- oped in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities. Note The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the mate- rial do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study 12
    1 REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 12 The response of an independent school in Perth to concerns raised about the conduct of a teacher between 1999 and 2009 JUNE 2015 Report of Case Study No. 12 2 ISBN 978-1-925289-26-8 © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to material as set out in this document. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). Contact us Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney, NSW, 2001 Email: [email protected] Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 3 Report of Case Study No. 12 The response of an independent school in Perth to concerns raised about the conduct of a teacher between 1999 and 2009 June 2015 COMMISSIONERS Justice Jennifer Coate Commissioner Bob Atkinson AO APM Commissioner Andrew Murray Report of Case Study No. 12 4 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 5 Table of contents Preface 1 Executive summary 5 1 Introduction 18 1.1 The school 18 1.2 YJ’s employment at the school 18 1.3 YJ’s convictions
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 16 November 2012
    United Nations S/2012/849 Security Council Distr.: General 16 November 2012 Original: English Letter dated 16 November 2012 from the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals addressed to the President of the Security Council I am pleased to transmit herewith the assessments of the President (see annex I) and of the Prosecutor (see annex II) of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, pursuant to paragraph 16 of Security Council resolution 1966 (2010). I would be grateful if you could transmit these assessments to the members of the Security Council. (Signed) Theodor Meron President 12-59594 (E) 271112 *1259594* S/2012/849 Annex I Progress report of the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Theodor Meron (for the period from 1 July to 14 November 2012) 1. The present report is the first submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1966 (2010), by which the Council established the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and, in paragraph 16 of the resolution, requested the President and the Prosecutor of the Mechanism to submit reports every six months to the Security Council on the progress of the work of the Mechanism. I. Introduction 2. On 22 December 2010, the Security Council adopted resolution 1966 (2010), which established the Mechanism to carry out a number of essential functions of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including the trial of fugitives who are among the most senior leaders suspected of being most responsible for crimes, after the closure of the Tribunals.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 17 November 2011
    United Nations A/66/564 General Assembly Distr.: General 17 November 2011 Original: English Sixty-sixth session Agenda item 129 International residual mechanism for criminal tribunals Letter dated 16 November 2011 from the President of the Security Council addressed to the President of the General Assembly I have the honour to refer to Security Council resolution 1966 (2010), by which the Council established the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (“the Mechanism”) and adopted the statute of the Mechanism annexed thereto. Having considered the nominations for judges of the Mechanism received by the Secretary-General, the Security Council hereby transmits the following nominations to the General Assembly in accordance with article 10, paragraph 1 (d) of the statute of the Mechanism: Carmel A. Agius (Malta)* Aydin Sefa Akay (Turkey)* Olivera Andjelkovic (Serbia) Jean-Claude Antonetti (France)* Florence Arrey (Cameroon)* Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda)* Lombe P. Chibesakunda (Zambia) Ivo Nelson de Caires Batista Rosa (Portugal) José Ricardo de Prada Solaesa (Spain) Juan Bautista Delgado Cánovas (Spain) Juan Antonio Durán Ramírez (El Salvador) Ben Emmerson (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) __________________ * Persons with experience as judges of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 11-59843 (E) 171111 *1159843* A/66/564 Christoph Flugge (Germany)* Graciela Susana Gatti Santana (Uruguay) Alfredo Gomez Tedeschi (Uruguay) Burton Hall (Bahamas)*
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Responding to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
    110 Ordinary Session of Synod : Proceedings for 2013 Progress in responding to the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse Purpose 1. To inform the Synod of progress in the response of this Diocese to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse (Commission). Background 2. As at the date of this Report, key matters concerning Royal Commission and its work may be summarised as follows – (a) The Commission has been charged with examining the sexual abuse of children in the context of institutions throughout Australia including churches and their agencies; (b) Other unlawful or improper treatment of children that accompanied child sexual abuse will also be considered by the Commission; (c) The Commission will obtain much of its evidence from the experiences of the individuals involved and will endeavour to ensure there are no obstacles to individuals giving their accounts to the Commission; (d) The Commission will identify where systems have failed to protect children and make recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions; (e) The Commission will last for at least 3 years (2013 to 2015) and will submit an interim report after 18 months (30 June 2014) to provide early findings and recommendations and to advise if time beyond 3 years is required; (f) The Commission is able to conduct hearings in different parts of the country concurrently and will run both private and public hearings; (g) The Commission is conducting
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of Solidarity : a Restatement of John Rawls' Law Of
    DISSERTATION: THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY: A RESTATEMENT OF JOHN RAWLS´ LAW OF PEOPLES ZUR ERLANGUNG DES AKADEMISCHEN GRADES DOCTOR PHILOSOPHIAE (DR. PHIL) VON MILICA TRIFUNOVIĆ EINGEREICHT IM DEZEMBER 2011. AN DER PHILOSOPHISCHEN FAKULTÄT I DER HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN PRÄSIDENT DER HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN: PROF. DR. JAN-HENDRIK OLBERTZ DEKAN: PROF. MICHAEL SEADLE GUTACHTER: 1. PROF. DR. VOLKER GERHARDT 2. PROF. DR. WULF KELLERWESSEL TAG DER MÜNDLICHEN PRÜFUNG: 20. JUNI 2012. 1 CONTENT CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................5 Instead of Introduction: Global Justice Debate- Conceptions and Misconceptions........................................5 1. Global Justice Debate – Conceptions and Misconceptions............................................................5 1.1. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSES....................................................................................................6 1.1.1. Aristotelian Paradigm................................................................................................7 1.1.2. Rawlsian Paradigm ...................................................................................................9 1.1.3. Aristotelian and Rawlsian Paradigm in A Global Context .......................................13 1.2. METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................21 1.2.1. Political Constructivism in a Global Context............................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Failures of Australia to Protect Against And
    THE FAILURES OF AUSTRALIA TO PROTECT AGAINST AND PROVIDE REDRESS FOR THE SYSTEMIC SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND COVER-UP BY CATHOLIC CLERGY AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIALS Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture In Connection with its Review of Australia 53rd Session, November 2014 I. Reporting Organisation This report is submitted by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests – Australia (SNAP) which has provided support to and sought justice and healing for Australian survivors of clergy sexual abuse for the past five years. SNAP Australia is part of an international network that was founded 25 years ago by a small group of survivors of rape and sexual violence committed by clergy within the Catholic Church. Today, the Network has over 20,000 members in 79 countries with support groups in 65 cities.1 Since 2011, SNAP has been working for accountability in international legal mechanisms for the widespread and systemic rape and sexual violence within the Catholic Church.2 Further to that effort, SNAP, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, submitted a Shadow Report and Supplemental Report to this Committee during its 52nd session in connection with its review of the Holy See. II. Summary of the Issue: The Failures of Australia to Protect Against and Provide Redress for the Systemic Sexual Violence and Cover-up within the Catholic Church and other institutions A. Institutional Sexual Violence in Australia We respectfully refer the Committee to the Shadow Report and supplemental submission in connection with the review of the Holy See for an overview of the global dimensions of the issue and the policies and practices of the Holy See that serve to subvert national systems and obstruct the right to redress.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Official Records Sixty-Sixth Session
    United Nations A/66/PV.87 General Assembly Official Records Sixty-sixth session 87th plenary meeting Friday, 16 December 2011, 10 a.m. New York President: Mr. Al-Nasser .................................... (Qatar) In the absence of the President, Mr. Thomson In accordance with article 8 of the statute of the (Fiji), Vice-President, took the Chair. Mechanism, the Mechanism shall have a roster of 25 independent judges, not more than two of whom The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m. may be nationals of the same State. This will be the first election of the judges for the Mechanism. Agenda item 129 Pursuant to article 10, paragraph 3, of the statute International residual mechanism for criminal tribunals of the Mechanism, the judges of the Mechanism, who will be assigned to either the branch for the Letter from the President of the Security Council International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or the (A/66/564) branch for the International Tribunal for the Former Memorandum by the Secretary-General Yugoslavia of the Mechanism, shall be elected for a (A/66/571/Rev.1) term of four years, beginning on 1 July 2012 and ending on 30 June 2016. Judges shall be eligible for Note by the Secretary-General (A/66/572) reappointment by the Secretary-General after The Acting President: This morning, the General consultation with the Presidents of the Security Assembly will take up agenda item 129, entitled Council and the General Assembly. “International residual mechanism for criminal Having considered the nominations for judges of tribunals”, to elect 25 judges of the Residual the Mechanism received by the Secretary-General, the Mechanism.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Justice in Latin America Is Facing Its Gravest Crisis As It Is Perceived As Unable to Respond to Popular Demands
    ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN LATIN AMERICA A PRIMER ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM LUIS SALAS & JOSE MARIA RICO CENTER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 I. THE GENERAL CONTEXT 3 A. History 3 1. Conquest and Colonization 3 2. Independence 5 3. Twentieth Century 6 B. Crime 8 C. The Civil Law Model 9 II. LEGISLATION 12 III. POLICE 14 IV. PROSECUTION 18 V. LEGAL DEFENSE 22 VI. COURTS 25 A. Court Organization 25 B. Court Administration 27 C. Selection and Tenure 28 D. Background of Judges 31 VII. CORRECTIONS 33 VIII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 36 A. Types of Procedures 36 B. Fundamental Guarantees 36 C. The Stages of the Process 37 1. The Instructional or Summary Stage 38 2. The Trial 40 3. Appellate remedies 40 D. Duration and Compliance with Procedural Periods 41 IX. PROBLEMS FACING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 42 A. General Problems 42 1. Norms 42 2. Social and Economic Problems 43 3. Political Problems 44 4. Human Rights 45 B. Judicial Independence 46 1. Unification of the Judicial Function 47 2. Judicial Career 48 C. Justice System Access 49 1. Knowledge of Rights and Institutions 49 2. Confidence 50 3. Costs 50 4. Location and Number of Courts 50 5. Corruption 50 D. Efficiency 51 1. Administration 51 2. Coordination 52 3. Budgeting, Planning and Evaluation 52 4. Caseloads and Delays 52 E. Fairness 53 F. Accountability 54 Glossary of Spanish Terms Used 56 Suggested Readings 59 Page TABLES 1. Issuance Dates of Current Latin American Constitutions and Codes 13 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Nili Cohen CV & Publications
    1 Nili Cohen CV & Publications Curriculum Vitae Education 1967 - 1971 LL.B. magna cum laude Tel-Aviv University 1971 - 1975 LL.M. summa cum laude Tel-Aviv University Thesis: "The Application of Law of Contracts to Juristic Acts and Obligations" (under the supervision of Prof. Z. Zeltner) 1975 - 1978 Ph.D. Tel-Aviv University Dissertation: "The Protection of Obligation Against Interference by Third Parties" (under the supervision of Prof. D. Friedmann) Experience Academic Positions 1971 - 1977 Assistant, Instructor, Tel-Aviv University 1977 - 1978 Visiting Scholar, University of Pennsylvania 1978 - 1979 Instructor, Tel-Aviv University 1979 - 1982 Lecturer, Tel-Aviv University 1982 - 1985 Senior Lecturer (tenure), Tel-Aviv University 1985 - 1986 Associate Professor, Tel-Aviv University 1986 - 1987 Visiting Professor, Temple University 1987 - 1989 Associate Professor. Tel-Aviv University 1989 - 2015 Full Professor, Tel-Aviv University 2002 – 2003 Visiting Scholar, New-York University 2015 - Emeritus Administrative Positions 1985 - 1986 Chairperson of the committee for students' affairs in the Faculty of Law 1988 - 1992 University committee for LlM students 1988 - 1993 Chairperson of the follow-up committee of the LlM students in the Theater Arts Department 1988 - 1994 Chairperson of departmental committee for research students 1994 - 1997 Vice Rector, Tel-Aviv University 1997 - 2001 Rector, Tel-Aviv University 2000- 2016 Member, Academic Committee, Venice International University 2001 - 2005 Pro-Rector, Tel-Aviv University 2 Nili Cohen CV & Publications 2003-2005 Appointments Committee, Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University 2005- 2007 Member of the follow-up committee of the LlM Berkeley Program in the Faculty of Law 2006-2015 Appointments Committee, Faculty of Law Governmental Committees 1983 -2004 Member of the committee for the codification of Israeli Law (Chairman: President of the Supreme Court, A.
    [Show full text]