The Changing Role of Judicial Review during Prolonged Emergencies: The Israeli Supreme Court during COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov ◽  
Itay Cohen ◽  
Chani Koth
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
Changing Role

Human rights in times of terror – a judicial point of view

Legal Studies ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aharon Barak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

This paper, delivered as the Second Scarman lecture, argues that the role of a judge on the Supreme Court of a democratic state is to protect both the constitution and the democracy. Judges in modern democracies should protect democracy both from terrorism and from the means the state wishes to use to fight terrorism. Judges meet their supreme test when they face situations of war and terrorism. The protection of human rights of every individual is a duty much more formidable in situations of war or terrorism than in times of peace and security. But if judges fail in their role in times of war and terrorism, they will be unable to fulfil their role in times of peace and tranquility. It is a myth to think that it is possible to maintain a sharp distinction between the status of human rights during a period of war and the status of human rights during a period of peace. The paper explores these issues through an examination of the need for a balanced and proportionate approach and by using illustrations from the example of the Israeli Supreme Court, with a focus on the role of judicial review in the ‘war on terror’.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
David Kretzmer ◽  
Yaël Ronen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political System ◽  
Public Image ◽  
The West ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
West Bank And Gaza ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
General Record ◽  
Israeli Occupation

This chapter describes the background to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, and changes that have taken place in these territories since then. It provides a profile of the Israeli Supreme Court—its composition, function, and record; and discusses factors that affect its role in reviewing petitions from Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories, including the Court’s public image, its position in the Israeli political system, and its general record in matters relating to judicial review of government action. The chapter concludes by reviewing changes in the actual regime in the Occupied Territories that question its characterisation as a regime of belligerent occupation.

Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy B. Flemming ◽  
Glen S. Krutz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Statistical Models ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Of

The expanding public policy role of high courts heightens concerns over whether societal and political inequalities affect the outcomes of litigation. However, comparative research on this question is limited. This article assesses whether status inequalities between parties and differences in the experience and resources of attorneys influence the selection of cases for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Canada. A series of statistical models reveal that governments are more likely than other parties to influence whether leave is granted but that the experience and resources of lawyers, unlike in the United States, have little impact. The decentralized, low volume and high access features of the Canadian process may explain this finding.

The Israeli judiciary-centered constitutionalism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel L Bendor
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Abstract The article argues that over the years a series of gradual developments has taken place in the judicial review policies of Israel’s Supreme Court, whereby the Court expanded its ad hoc discretion in determining the constitutional limits that apply to primary legislation. Israeli constitutionalism has become judiciary-centered. The article suggests that judicial discretion that the Israeli Supreme Court tends to exercise in constitutional matters is of two types: substantive judicial discretion, which concerns the interpretation or application of the law; and adjudicative discretion, which includes both the discretion to deny in limine petitions in which the Court does not deem it necessary to grant relief according to considerations such as standing or delay; and the Court’s discretion in the manner of the hearing. The article suggests three illuminations of Israeli judiciary-centered constitutionalism: expenditure of the justices’ awareness of their discretion; the decline of the rules structuring judicial discretion; and a re-rise of the justices’ recognition of legitimacy of adjudicative discretion due to the expansion of substantive judicial discretion.

The Origins of Judicial Review in Canada

1983 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject

abstractThe origins of judicial review in this country have been the subject of debate among legal scholars. This article examines the conflicting accounts provided by W. R. Lederman and B. L. Strayer, and attempts to assess them in the light of the Confederation debate, 1864–1867, and the debate surrounding passage of the Supreme Court Act in 1875. It arrives at these considerations: that the intentions of the founders are of greater significance than has hitherto been suggested; that both the founders themselves and the legislators in 1875 held conflicting expectations on the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional matters; and that this conflict has left its mark on the court. The article concludes that reflection on the origins of judicial review ought to temper the enthusiasm with which many Canadians have greeted the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document