The Rule of Law in Israel

Kedar, Nir

doi:10.2979/israelstudies.23.3.20

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The position of AG in Israel originated in the British mandate regime in Palestine, and has evolved over the years as a powerful civil servant, in charge of all legal powers held by the executive branch: the AG is, concomitantly, head of the Country's prosecutorial arm, the chief legal advisor to the government, the ultimate expounder of the law for the executive, and its representative in the courts. He is appointed by the government for a 6‐year term, longer than the tenure of any elected government (Kedar, 2018).…”

Section: The Netanyahu Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking

Aronson

Elad‐Strenger

Kessler

et al. 2022

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public legitimation of legal decisionmaking can be promoted through various strategies. We examine strategies of legitimation that are premised on personalizing the public image of legal agents. A personalized public administration emphasizes individual decisionmakers and seeks legitimacy through familiarity with the character, identity, and virtues of individual agents, whereas a non-personalized public administration projects an ethos of technocratic decisionmaking, seeking legitimacy through institutional objectivity and impartiality. We conducted an experiment to examine the efficacy of personalization strategies in the context of a politically charged legal affair: the criminal cases involving the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. We focus on people's perceived objectivity of the office of the Israeli attorney general (AG), given exposure (vs. no exposure) to different types of personal information about the AG, and while manipulating the salience of contrasting decisions concerning Netanyahu (indicting him on several counts of corruption versus exculpating him in others). We find that exposure to personal information about the AG decreased the perceived objectivity of his office, compared to no exposure to personal information, regardless of the type of information, decision salience, and respondents' political leanings. Our findings, therefore, support the legitimating potential of the non-personalization of decisionmakers, and show that it pertains to people positioned as both "losers" and "winners" with regard the political impact of the decision. The study further reflects the capacity of nonabstract real-world, real-time, analyses to shed light on the drivers of public trust in legal decisionmaking in politically polarized contexts-an issue of pertinence in many contemporary democracies.

show abstract

Section: The Netanyahu Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking

Aronson

Elad‐Strenger

Kessler

et al. 2022

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…758, 808; Barak, 2006, p. 22). As such, it is incumbent upon the Court to apply, interpret and enforce Israeli and international law (Waldron, 2006; Kedar, 2018). However, as Menachem Mautner noted, the Court ‘has unquestionably perceived itself, above all, as an organ of the Zionist state’ – a perception acutely felt by its indigenous Palestinian Arab population (2011, p. 38).…”

Section: Zionist Settler Colonialism the Supreme Court Of Israel And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The jurisprudence of elimination: starvation and force-feeding of Palestinians in Israel's highest court

Samuel¹

2021

International Journal of Law in Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses the functioning of law and legal institutions in Palestine/Israel through the lens of settler colonialism by analysing two thematically interconnected decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Israel, the first involving the starvation of besieged Palestinian civilians and the second involving the force-feeding of Palestinian prisoners. Following a discussion regarding the role of law in settler colonialism, it proceeds to argue that the Court enabled, legitimised and legalised state-sanctioned violence that targeted the native Palestinian population by and through a jurisprudence of elimination in order to facilitate the attainment of Israeli settler-colonial objectives. By so doing, the paper provides further evidence in support of the appropriateness of settler colonialism as a theoretical framework for the case of Israel, including in legal matters.

show abstract

Israel’s Constitutional Order in Upheaval? Attempts of the 34th Government Coalition to Transform the Constitutional Order

Herzog

2020

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Rule of Law in Israel

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking

Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking

The jurisprudence of elimination: starvation and force-feeding of Palestinians in Israel's highest court

Israel’s Constitutional Order in Upheaval? Attempts of the 34th Government Coalition to Transform the Constitutional Order

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About