During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Israeli Supreme Court was repeatedly asked to address the issue of the security barrier Israel was building, which was partly along the Green Line (the post-1948 armistice lines). The
This article analyzes decision making in national security cases on the Israeli Supreme Court and draws broader comparative conclusions. In the post-9/11 era, security has topped the national agendas in numerous established democracies, with repercussions involving their courts. Analyses of decision making on national security in Western judiciaries may benefit from lessons from the Israeli Court, which has been a pivotal player in this domain. A formal model analyzes how internal court institutions plus the rationality of individual justices are conducive to strategic Court behavior. Predictions are tested empirically using an original database with security decisions from 1997 to 2004. The findings indicate that constitutional design, Court leadership, ideology of the ruling coalition and interest group activity have influenced decisions of the Israeli Court on national defense. This study builds on and expands existing scholarship on the complex links among law, politics, and national security in Israel and beyond.
A Spiral Progression
In the early 1990s, soon after Israel had ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Israeli Supreme Court issued several rulings that focused on the issue of children's rights, which would now be addressed as a fundamentally new doctrine. Presented as reflecting a significant change in the attitude of the case law, this doctrine was ascribed to the ratification of the Convention and to the enactment in 1992 of Israel's Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In this article, I argue that the recognition of children as rights bearers is not new and that signs of it are evident in the Court's case law dating back to the early years of Israel's existence. The development of the case law, however, has not been linear. In this article, I analyze the spiral progression of this process and suggest explanations for the particular course that Israeli case law has taken with regard to the recognition of children's rights.
Between the ‘Good Person’ and the ‘Bad Citizen’
—especially the strengthening of its Jewish-religious aspect—the LFH has found itself challenged from a cultural perspective. I have suggested that in response to these processes, the LFH has diverted some of its political activity to the Israeli Supreme Court
Tort Law as an Instrument of Social Change under Multiculturalism
Ella Glass and Yifat Bitton
spatially separate the two groups. The first lawsuit began with a petition submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court by a public organization seeking a finding that the discrimination against the ultra-Orthodox students was unconstitutional. The second was a
Dan Avnon, Nitzan Lebovic, Raymond Cohen, Elie Friedman, Sara Helman, Gad Barzilai and Ari Ariel
set the stage for the analysis to come. One of the most prominent processes in Israel during recent decades has been its judicialization—namely, the increasing adjudication of politically controversial issues by the Israeli Supreme Court and the
Sderot and Sha’ar Hanegev
Kibbutz Gevim was rejected. Yossi appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court. He noted the historical power relations between Sha’ar HaNegev and the residents of Sderot, who worked as laborers in the kibbutzim. Yossi had two legal options: an individual