Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Palestine. Supreme Court"

Once upon a time there was a lawyer who was most familiar with the rules of criminal procedure and of evidence in force in mandatory Palestine in May 1948. One day in June 1948, the lawyer disappeared. Some say he fell into a deep sleep for many years. Only after the passage of forty years he awoke.Turning to and fro, he will immediately recognize the Ottoman building that houses the courts in Jerusalem's Russian Compound. He will also feel at home with the basic hierarchy of the judiciary: two courts of first instance—magistrates' and district—and no intermediate court of appeal between the district level and the Supreme Court.

In the context of prolonged occupation, it has long been argued that the Israeli Supreme Court (ISC), in High Court of Justice (HCJ) formation, is facilitating the entrenchment of a permanent regime of legalized control by moving away from a model of exception to ordinary civilian jurisdiction over the West Bank. This was recently demonstrated in the Khan-al-Ahmar case, in which a group of settlers petitioned the ISC/HCJ demanding the execution of a pending Israeli demolition order over a school in a Bedouin village in Palestine. The court sided with the army, deferring to a political solution for the transfer of the entire Bedouin community elsewhere. Drawing on existing scholarship and the author’s first-hand impressions of the final hearing, this article interprets the Khan-al-Ahmar case as an illustration of how the exceptional military nature of the occupation has shifted to a permanent regime of legalized control overseen by an ordinary civilian court.

My story is full of holes. The first hole, or rather, ditch, was dug in 1930 by the municipality of Haifa. An Arab, Dr. Caesar Khoury, fell into the ditch and fractured his shoulder-blade.Could Dr. Khoury recover? The law of torts of mandatory Palestine was found in the Mejelle — an Ottoman code of Moslem civil law. Did the Mejelle provide a remedy in the case of personal injury? “Unfortunately,” said Judge Francis Baker, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of Palestine, “the Mejelle dealt with liability for damages caused by animals to property, but it was ‘silent’ with regards to injuries caused to persons”. Therefore, Dr. Khoury could not recover.The second hole in my story belongs to a Jew, Feivel Danovitz. In 1939, Danovitz was run down by a truck in Tel Aviv. He sued the driver and the owner of the truck. The lower courts of Tel Aviv decided that if the Mejelle did not deal with liability for personal injury, that meant that there was a hole in the tort law of Palestine. Such a hole could be filled by recourse to the English common law in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922. Since the English common law recognized liability for personal injury, Danovitz could recover.

The principle of separation of powers among the three organs of government i.e., the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are one of the main pillars of the democratic system. This principle guarantees a balance of powers between these three organs. However, in Palestine, the issue arises as a result of a lack of commitment from these organs to practically apply this principle in accordance with the Palestinian Basic Law of 2003. Nevertheless, in Indonesian Constitution of 1945 has stated that is a democratic country with the foundation of a separation of powers. In addition, the practice in Indonesia shows that there is various constitutional mechanism to split the power. The objectives of this article are to examine the practice of separation of powers in Palestine and Indonesia and to harmonize the theoretical and practical aspects. In order to achieve these objectives, doctrinal legal research using the qualitative approach was engaged. Findings show that the principle of separation of powers was not fully practiced in Palestine between the three organs, especially the Executive and there is an absence of constitutional oversight. This article recommends that the role of the Palestinian Supreme Constitutional Court be activated to monitor all three governmental organs to ensure that this principle is fully implemented.

The Israeli Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment regarding a trade dispute between a Palestinian importer and Israeli trade authorities. The court relied on a trade agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (the ‘Paris Protocol’) of 1994 and concluded in favour of the Israeli authorities, based on a formal reading of the agreement. After analysing the judgment and concluding that its ruling is correct according to the prevailing law and trade agreement, this article suggests that the judgment underscores the fact that the Customs Union model used to regulate contemporary trade relations between the parties is inadequate. It further argues that a Free Trade Agreement would be a better model, which would allow the Palestinian Authority (the ‘PA’) to take responsibility for its trade policy, design a trade policy that would fit its needs, and promote more equal, reciprocal relations between the parties. Along with other democratic and governance reforms within the Palestinian Authority, such a model could reduce its economic dependence on Israel, improve diversification, support economic development, and reduce the concern for fiscal leakage connected to the current trade agreement. The article also calls for strong anti-corruption measures to be implemented within the Palestinian Authority to achieve these goals. Overall, the article highlights the need for a new trade agreement that promotes economic growth and development for both parties.

Too many memories? Difficulties of diaspora? Or lapses in memory? The spring of 1998 marked the passage of fifty years of nakba, the historic Palestinian “catastrophe.” Israel celebrated the season as an anniversary, commemorating the fifty elapsed years of its statehood. The short-lived “peace process” initiated in the preliminary if protracted negotiations in Madrid in 1990, which were abruptly concluded in their displacement to Oslo, was once again “stalled.” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans to expand the boundaries of West Jerusalem, in a move clearly designed to add to the pressures on Arab East Jerusalem and predetermine the “final status” talks of the process by decisively altering both the topography and the demography of greater Jerusalem. And the Israeli Supreme Court referred the highly controversial issue of the legalized torture of Palestinian prisoners back to the Knesset for further determination. What had happened to the “human rights,” and their universal declaration, that were also being commemorated in the year 1998, in celebration of the passage in 1948 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? According to Article 5 of the Declaration, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And under the terms of Article 13, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” Additionally, according to Article 15, first, “Everyone has the right to a nationality,” and second, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” What then was happening in Palestine, to the Palestinians, in the spring of 1998 when these anniversaries came up?

In late November 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Interior's order to deport Human Rights Watch (HRW) director for Israel and Palestine, Omar Shakir. The court based its decision on a 2017 amendment to Israel's 1952 Entry into Israel Law enabling the government to refuse entry to foreigners who allegedly advocate for the boycott of Israel. The same law was invoked to deny entry to U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the summer of 2019. The campaign against Shakir began almost immediately after he was hired by HRW in 2016, and the court's decision marked the culmination of a multi-year battle against the deportation order. In this interview, JPS Editorial Committee member, Rutgers University professor, and author Noura Erakat discusses the details of his case with Shakir in an exchange that also examines the implications of the case for human rights advocacy, in general, and for Palestinians, in particular. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

INTRODUCTION. Israel is a diverse and controversial state. Its laws, especially those of the area of family and marital law, are distinctly unique. The reason being that throughout its centuries-long history Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) – the historical name of the country, the structure of norms of this branch of law has gone through a set of changes under different political regimens. The government ruling over this holy land at a certain time period was to some extent influencing current social order and the lives of Jewish people, including such aspect as the performance of religious rituals.Considering the specificity of traditionalistic norms of Judean legal system attempts of influence on it from the outside have always been a big challenge. Those norms had to be strictly followed as it was of utmost importance for the conservation of the Jewish communities, Jewish culture and its authenticity, which for centuries has been challenged by many in attempts to modify, discriminate and even irradicate it. Hence, in this article the authors examined the most notable periods of the existence of Jewish communities in Eretz Israel. Inter alia there is an analysis of rules and measures introduced by the ruling system under the Ottoman Empire (from year 1517 to year 1917), of decrees present under the Mandate of Palestine (1922-1948), of the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948 and of current legislation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article isbased on the current Israeli legislation which concerns familial and marital relations, as well as on traditional religious code of rules and obligations “Halakha” which is still in action in Israel’s society. In the article Ottoman and British-Palestinian legislation is mentioned which was in force during the corresponding historical periods of time. It is also stated that the majority of the legislative acts in the area of familial and marital relations follow the principles of the International law, the rulings of the Supreme court of Israel are made according to the norms of International law and, among other things, in consideration with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women of 1979. For the achievement of result general and specific scientific methods of research were applied, in particular historical-legal and comparative-legal methods of study. RESEARCH RESULTS. Research result consists in presentation of current Israeli familial and marital legislation and other religious traditional rules review. It is well-proven that despite the strictness of the Judean traditions, according to the clauses of the Israeli Declaration of Independence 1948, Israel being a Jewish state is also a modern and democratic one. Democratic principles of equality and humanism prevail in cases where in the proceedings regarding marital and family affairs where the rights of one of the parties are violated, every citizen of the state of Israel can appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Justice seeking a justified sentence and protection of one’s interests. Therefore, the result of the integration of the legal principles typical for democratic countries and the traditional norms of Judaism current legal system of the state of Israel was created. The mechanism of this system comes from the respect for the traditions whilst the main principles of democracy are also followed, namely those of justice, equality and humanism. This is what makes the legal system of Israel unique in every aspect, including the norms of familial and marital relations which integrate both traditional implementations and modern aspects. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the frames of the present research study the authors found that familial and marital law of Israel is based on norms of the Religious law, on a special code of rules and obligations called – “Halakha”. From the standpoint of the development of law and practice, a certain role was played by the procedural rules introduced in the territory of Eretz Israel during the period of Ottoman Empire. English law had a certain influence on the development of Israeli law in general during British Mandate of Palestine. Modern Israeli legislation in the field of marriage and family relations is based on and takes into account international agreements to which Israel is a party.

Abstract Conflict in Gaza Strip involving Israel and Palestine has continuously attracted international concerns. Under the strict authority of Israel, humanitarian issues materialize in the strip as Gaza’s inhabitants undergo crises including energy and subsistence while Israel fails to fulfill the basic needs of the people. In 2007, Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed with his associates sought legal remedy to the Supreme Court of Israel to clarify their rights inhabiting the Gaza Strip. The purpose of this article is to explain whether international humanitarian law could be implemented to the occupying power of Israel in Gaza Strip and elucidate the limitation of the occupying power regarded by the law. Achieving this explanation requires a qualitative legal approach. It emphasizes on documents scrutiny using the perspectives of primary, secondary, and tertiary laws. The research result shows that under the regime of international humanitarian law, “alien occupation” is the key to regulate the Gaza Strip against the regime of the occupying power by Israel. The one-year rule in the Case of Gaza Strip indicates that Israel held the occupying power of the territory as not only did Israel act as a controller but also it participated in the physical activities to regulate the lives of Gaza residents in addition to the limitation of the functions of Palestinian Authority posed by Israel. Keywords: Gaza Strip, International Humanitarian Law, Occupying Power Abstrak Konflik di Jalur Gaza yang melibatkan Israel dan Palestina terus menarik perhatian internasional. Di bawah kekuasaan Israel, isu humaniter mencuat di jalur tersebut karena penduduk Gaza mengalami krisis energi dan mata pencaharian, sementara Israel tidak memenuhi kebutuhan dasar hidup penduduk tersebut. Pada tahun 2007, Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed bersama rekan-rekannya mengajukan tinjauan hukum kepada Pengadilan Tinggi Israel untuk mengklarifikasi hak-hak mereka sebagai penduduk di Jalur Gaza. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan apakah hukum humaniter internasional dapat diterapkan dalam kasus penguasa pendudukan di Jalur Gaza oleh Israel dan menjelaskan batasan kekuasaan pendudukan tersebut. Pendekatan kualitatif hukum berbasis studi dokumen dengan perspektif hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian ini membuktikan bahwa di bawah hukum humaniter internasional, “pendudukan asing” menjadi kunci regulasi yang dapat diterapkan di Jalur Gaza di bawah resim penguasa pendudukan yakni Israel. Aturan “Satu Tahun” di jalur tersebut menunjukan bahwa Israel memegang kendali wilayah tersebut karena Israel tidak hanya bertindak sebagai pengontrol melainkan juga melakukan kegiatan fisik untuk mengatur kehidupan masyarakat Gaza juga membatasi fungsi-fungsi autoritas Palestina. Kata Kunci: Hukum Humaniter Internasional, Jalur Gaza, Penguasa Pendudukan

Israeli constitutional law is a sphere of many contradictions and traditions. Growing out of British law absorbed by the legal system of Mandate Palestine, Israeli constitutional law has followed the path of constitutional law based on unwritten constitutional principles. This book evaluates the development of the Israeli constitution from an unwritten British-style body of law to the declaration of the Basic Laws as the de facto Israeli constitution by the supreme court and on through the present day.The book is divided into a chronological history, devoted to a description of the process of establishing a constitution; and a thematic one, devoted to the review and evaluation of major constitutional issues that are also the subject of discussion and research in other countries, with emphasis on the unique characteristics of the Israeli case.