What Happens When the Judiciary Switches Roles with the Legislator? An Innovative Israeli Version of a Mixed Jurisdiction

in European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

Civil Law codices are analytic, abstract and removed from the specific influence of particular cases. When rules are codified In Common Law systems they reflect a collection of rulings and not a collection of analytic principles. These differences stem from the nature and the motivations of the legislative enterprise. Civil-continental legislation originates in a legislative initiative “from above”. It is driven by the aspiration for legal harmony and completeness, and was originally formulated by academics. Legislation in the common-law countries results from a “bottom up” effect in which reality dictates the nature of the developing rules, step by step.

Civil law systems like Common Law systems accept the supremacy of the statutory law over judge-made law. Yet when the judiciary has the authority or the power to influence the legislative agenda there is a veritable role switch. In a manner resembling continental-style legislation, the court reviewing existing legislation determines an abstract principle, usually in reliance on a particular constitutional text, and it is the legislature that is required to distill the principles into specific legislative norms, a function normally fulfilled by the common law court. The question forming the basis of this paper is the nature of the legislative process and the legislation produced by this kind of relationship.

The paper addresses this question through the narrow prism of a detailed examination of a particular Israeli test case in which the Israeli Supreme Court handed down a ruling on a fundamental principle but on its own initiative delegated to the legislature the task of implementing it and providing a specific legislative enactment of this principle, on the basis of which the Court would then rule on the concrete case. The result in this particular case was that the traditional roles of the respective branches were reversed. The practical result of the move to delegate the implementation of a far-reaching and fundamental ruling to the legislature was a subversion of the fundamental ruling and delayed justice for the parties who sought a resolution of the matter.

The paper claims that this mechanism leads to the creation of a new variety of a “mixed-system”. The judiciary abandoned its primary obligation, namely to serve as an instance for resolving disputes, while the legislature became an executor of judicially enunciated principles. The law thus enacted resembles, in its detailed and complex language, a common law text while the principle formulated in the judgment of the court resembles a section of an analytical “civil law” statute. When the motivation for legislation stems from the court’s directives, rather than the governmental or legislative interests, the legislature or the executive branch has an interest in thwarting the court’s intention through the use of various tactics readily at its disposal. This process also affects the vague and detailed formulation of the legislation, which has a character rather different from the abstract nature of civil law legislation. The lesson that this episode teach us, which the court itself internalized, is that a court cannot really dictate a legislative agenda and that it should instead focus on its designated role – the resolving of concrete disputes.

Sections
References
  • BarakAA Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy” (2002) Harv L Rev16162.

  • BarakAInterpretation in Law – Vol 1: General Theory (Nevo Jerusalem 1992) [in Hebrew].

  • BarakAInterpretation in Law – Vol 2: Statutory Interpretation (Nevo Jerusalem 1993) [in Hebrew].

  • RubinsteinA and MedinaBThe Constitutional Law of the State of Israel - Volume A6th ed (Schocken Jerusalem 2005) [in Hebrew].

  • BateupCReassessing the Dialogic Possibilities of Weak-Form Bills of Rights” (2009) Hastings Int’l & Comp L Rev529599.

  • ZilberDBureaucracy as Politics (Nevo Jerusalem 2006) [in Hebrew].

  • WolffDJBook Note (2009)Stan J Int’l L321324.

  • WieackerFA History of Private Law in Europe (translated from the original German by Tony Weir) (Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).

  • SandbergHLand Expropriations of Private Arab Land in Israel - An Empirical Analysis of the Regular Course of Business” (2010) Is L R590610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SandbergHLegal Colonialism – Americanization of Legal Education in Israel” (2010) Global Jurist Issue 2; Article 6.

  • NadlerJSeidman DiamondS and PattonMMGovernment Takings of Private Property” in PersilyNCitrinJ and EganP (eds) Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy (Oxford University Press Oxford2008) 286309.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GavisonRPublic Involvement of the Supreme Court” in Gavison R KremnitzerM and Dotan Y (eds) Judicial Activism: For and Against (Magnes Hebrew University Press Jerusalem 2000) 69164 [in Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CooterRDThe Strategic Constitution (Princeton University Press Princeton 2000).

  • NavotSThe Constitutional Law of Israel (Kluwer Alphen aan den Rijn 2007).

  • Holzman-GazitYLand Expropriation in Israel: Law Culture and Society (Ashgate Aldershot 2007).

  • MerselYSuspending the declaration of invalidity” (2005) Mishpat Umimshal – Law and Government in Israel39102 [in Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ShacharYGrossM and HarrisRAnatomy of Discourse and Dissent in the Supreme Court – Quantitative Analyses” (1997) Tel-Aviv University Law Review749795 [in Hebrew].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Avney Derech v Minister of Finance HCJ 9614/03 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (4) 2902 (2010) [in Hebrew].

  • Cohen v Attorney General CA 238/53 [Isr SC] PD 8(1) 4 (1954) [in Hebrew].

  • Edri v Haskal CA 595/88 [Isr SC] PD 47(5) 333 (1993) [in Hebrew].

  • Even Zohar v State of Israel CA 2281/06 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (2) 1241 (2010) [in Hebrew].

  • Even Zohar v State of Israel SCA 5151/10 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon 2010(4) 1444 (2010) [in Hebrew].

  • Karsik v State of Israel HC 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (1) 1743 (2009) [in Hebrew] (In short 7thKarsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] PD 55(2)625 (2001) [in Hebrew] (In short Karsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (2) 1975 (2008) [in Hebrew] (In short 6th Karsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (2) 3508 (2006) [in Hebrew] (In short 4th Karsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (2) 4727 (2007) [in Hebrew] (In short 5th Karsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (2) 875 (2002) [in Hebrew] (In short 2nd Karsik).

  • Karsik v State of Israel HCJ 2390/96 [Isr SC] Takdin-Elyon (3) 964 (2005) [in Hebrew] (In short 3rd Karsik).

  • Canada Act1982 (U.K.).

  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1982.

  • Constitution Act1982.

  • Amendment of Land (Expropriation) Ordinance (No. 3) Law 2010.

  • Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty 1992.

  • Defence (Emergency) Regulations 1945.

  • Lands (Expropriation) Ordinance 1943.

  • Human Rights Act1998

  • Draft Bill of Land (Expropriation) (Ordinance) (Amendment No. 3) 2006.

  • Records of the 74thSession of the 17thKnesset 10 Divrei HaKnesset (19.12.2006) [in Hebrew].

  • Finance Committee Protocol (8.12.2009) [in Hebrew].

  • Finance Committee Protocol (9.11.2009) [in Hebrew].

  • Finance Committee Protocol (26.10.2009) [in Hebrew].

  • Finance Committee Protocol (14.12.2009) [in Hebrew].

  • Finance Committee Protocol (15.12.2009) [in Hebrew].

  • Records of the 107thSession of the 18thKnesset (08.2.2010) [in Hebrew].

  • Vigoda-GadotE and MizrahiS (2009) Israeli Public Sector Performance: Citizens’, Attitudes Analysis and National Assessment [in Hebrew] cpmp.hevra.haifa.ac.il/admin/uploads/files/NAPPA-IL-09.heb.pdf [date of use 9 Sep 2012].

    • Export Citation
  • BaumI (2008) ‘ H.C. Karsik: Who will defend the property rights of the land owners in Givaat Olga?De-Marker. 14 September 2008 www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?ElementId=skira20080914_1020796 [date of use 9 Sep 2012].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Israel Ministry of Finance (2004) Report of the Inter-ministries Committee for the Change of the Land (Expropriation) Ordinance 1943www.inance.gov.il/karka.htm [date of use 9 Sep 2012].

    • Export Citation
  • Supreme Court of Israel2001Karsik v State of Israel (English translation) elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/96/900/023/g10/96023900.g10.htm [date of use 9 Sep 2012].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 21 21 1
Full Text Views 147 147 0
PDF Downloads 4 4 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0