Law and History—A Need for Demarcation

Abstract

I am grateful to David Abraham and Eben Moglen for their thoughtful comments that illuminate several aspects of my essay. I agree with many of their remarks.Formally, it is indeed history with which the courts deal. This is so as courts are usually called to rule upon past events. Nevertheless, most of the events that are dealt with by the courts, just like most occurrences in life, do not attract historical interest. I am willing to accept the significance criterion proposed by Moglen for screening events of historical importance, yet it is the appropriateness criterion that tells us which of these events fits the judicial process. As for commissions of inquiry, both criteria apply. The event must be of significance (“a matter of vital public importance”) to justify the establishment of a commission. At the same time it must fit the nature of a commission.

Law and Sedition in Israeli Films: From the Assassination of Itzhak Rabin to the Hilltop Movement

“…Th is recalls the already mentioned work of Carlo Ginzburg and, more poignantly in the context, that of jurist Asher Maoz, both of whom have argued for the need for strong boundaries between history and law. 18 As Maoz writes, there are usually two types of commissions of inquiry, those "with an eye to the past, having as their main purpose calming the public about past events, and commissions with an eye to the future [. .…”