THE LEGAL CULTURE AND MIGRATION: STRUCTURE, ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF LAW AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF THE SCIENCE OF LAW Julia Shamir June 2012 ABSTRACT The concept of legal culture has been receiving a growing attention from scholars; more recently, it has been the subject of numerous empirical investigations. However, this research is often over-generalizing, because it overemphasizes the similarity of the opinions held by different segments of population. Furthermore, the relationship of migration and the change—or persistence—of the attitudes and perceptions that constitute legal culture has not received particular attention in the scholarly literature. Drawing on 102 in-depth interviews with representatives of three segments of the Israeli population—immigrants of the early 90’s from the former Soviet Union, secular Israeli Jews and members of the Israeli Diaspora in Silicon Valley, CA— this research investigates various aspects of legal culture. First, exploring four parameters of the legal culture—attitudes towards the rule of law, the subjective significance of individual liberty, perceptions of the neutrality of law, and dispute resolution preferences, including readiness to pursue rights and attitudes towards the courts—this study provides a comprehensive account of the legal cultures of these three groups. The second important finding of this research is the persistence of the attitudes and perceptions that constitute legal culture over time. It appears that although two decades elapsed since the respondents of the first group emigrated from the former Soviet Union to Israel, they still express notions and demonstrate attitudes that bring to mind the Iron Fist of the Soviet Rule. Additionally, it appears that the attitudes characteristic of the pre-immigration outlooks affects—to a certain extent—the socialization of the new generation growing up and being educated in Israel. Finally, this research calls into focus the significant disparities of the attitudes between various groups of population, leading to the conclusion that these differences warrant special consideration on the part of the policy-makers, whose ability to effectively secure desired behavior by means of regulation is linked to the attitudes of the population. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thinking about all the assistance, guidance and support that I have received in course of my work on this dissertation, I realize how blessed I am to have met and to have worked with such remarkable individuals, who in addition to being exceptionally talented, are also admirable individuals. Although many people have contributed to this project, in one way or another, I would like to specifically mention a few names; these are individuals whose help in this process—both intellectual and emotional—was truly invaluable and indispensable. I would like to express my profound gratitude to Professor Lawrence M. Friedman, a brilliant scholar who served as my primary advisor. I am deeply indebted to him for his mentorship, supervision and counsel that were essential to my project. His patient advice, encouragement and endless enthusiasm kept me on track in course of this fascinating journey. I have been privileged and honored to receive remarkable guidance from Professor Deborah R. Hensler; her dedication to the students and commitment to their success go well beyond the expected duty of a professor. I greatly appreciate sincere commitment and support provided by Professor David F. Engstrom; his insightful comments helped me improve this work. My fellow JSD students deserve a special gratitude for their support and insightful comments; they never felt their job to be complete with criticism, always struggling with me to find creative solutions. Last, but not least, no acknowledgement would be truly complete without mentioning my family. My profound thanks and gratitude to my ‘better half’, Noam; without his endless love, patience and support this challenging endeavor would not have even come to a beginning. As to my sons Itamar, Yotam, Bnaya and Eitan who by their mere presence enlighten my life: nothing is worth without you. v TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 5 A. THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 5 B. THE LEGAL CULTURE ........................................................................................................... 6 1. The Concept of Legal Culture ................................................................................................ 6 2. Significance of Legal Culture ................................................................................................. 9 a. Legal Culture and Society .................................................................................................. 9 b. Significance of Individuals’ Legal Values ....................................................................... 12 C. MEASURING LEGAL CULTURE ......................................................................................... 19 1. The Unit of Measurement: Study of Legal Cultures within Cultures ................................... 20 2. The Aspects of a Legal Culture ............................................................................................ 21 a. Cultural Definition of the Rule of Law ............................................................................ 22 b. Individual Liberty ............................................................................................................. 25 c. Neutrality of Law ............................................................................................................. 25 d. Rights Consciousness and Modes of Dispute Resolution................................................. 26 III. THE CURRENT RESEARCH .................................................................................................... 27 A. RESEARCH OF LEGAL CULURE: CHOOSING THE POPULATIONS ............................. 27 B. ISRAELIS AS POTENTIAL SUBJECTS OF A RESEARCH OF LEGAL CULURES ......... 28 C. PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF THE ISRAELI LEGAL CULTURE AND THE NEED FOR THE CURRENT STUDY ................................................................................................................. 32 D. CURRENT STUDY ................................................................................................................. 36 1. Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union to Israel ............................................................ 36 a. Immigrants from the FSU as a separate group within the Israeli society ......................... 38 b. The support of the FSU immigrants of the Russian cultural, political and other institutions ................................................................................................................................ 38 c. The Russian language and its continued use by the FSU immigrants .............................. 40 d. The FSU immigrants and the Russian language media .................................................... 40 2. Members of the Israeli Diaspora in the ‘Silicon Valley’ ...................................................... 42 3. Israeli Secular Jews .............................................................................................................. 44 IV. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 45 A. RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 46 1. Research question ................................................................................................................. 46 2. Research Method .................................................................................................................. 46 3. Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 47 4. Data Analysis........................................................................................................................ 48 a. Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................... 48 b. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 50 5. Methodological Limitations ................................................................................................. 51 vi B. RESEARCH SAMPLE – DISCRIPTIVE RESULTS .............................................................. 54 1. Education .............................................................................................................................. 55 2. Economic status .................................................................................................................... 55 3. Area of residence .................................................................................................................. 56 4. Age ......................................................................................................................................