Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:38:40.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Note on the Publication of Israel's Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Ruth Lapidoth
Get access

Extract

An Israeli lawyer who reads Professor Engel's very interesting remarks “On the Evidence of U.S. Treaty Law” will feel like the poor man who reacted to a rich man's complaints by saying: “For you the diamonds are sparse, for me the soup is thin”.

In Israel there are two official publications which give information about treaties:

1) Kitvei Amana—Israel Treaty Documents; and 2) Yalkut HaPirsumim—Government Notices. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for these two publications but it follows the advice of the Foreign Ministry in all substantive matters concerning the publication of information on treaties.

The treaties to which Israel has become a party are published in Kitvei Amana. So far, some 22 volumes have been published in this series. Bilateral agreements are published in the two languages in which the treaty was concluded, i.e., Hebrew and the official language of the other party. As to multilateral conventions, a Hebrew translation of them is published, together with the original text in one or two of the official languages of the treaty. For example, the English and the French version of the U.N. Charter were published, as well as a Hebrew translation. Together with the text of the treaty, some additional relevant information is also given: a list (with dates) of the signatures and ratifications of the treaty, date of its coming into force, date of its coming into force for Israel.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1972 , pp. 368 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There are of course some exceptions, e.g., the 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. The Israeli law on Air Navigation (Offences and Jurisdiction), 1971,(Sefer HaHukim no. 617) lays down that a notice by the Minister of Transport published in Reshumot with regard to the States parties to the Convention, will be the proof of that fact for the purposes of the law (article 24). Accordingly, from time to time the Minister publishes the names of States which have become parties to the Convention in Yalkut HaPirsumim. One may ask whether this is the only admissible proof on this matter. See also article 4 of the Shipping (Limitation of Liability of Owners of Vessels) Law, 1965, 19 L.S.I. 234.

2 In addition the names of the countries which joined the 1963 Tokyo Convention and the 1957 Brussels Convention on the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-going Ships, are published in Yalkut HaPirsumim, see supra n. 1.

3 It should be remembered that Israel is bound only by treaties concluded by herself, and does not consider herself bound by treaties entered into on behalf of Palestine under the Mandate; see Replies from Governments to Questionnaires of the International Law Commission, U.N. Document A/CN.4/19, (1950) II Yearbook of the International Law Commission 215, § 23.

4 See The Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Samara and Others (1956) 10 P.D. 1825; Reiczuk v. State of Israel, (1959) 13 P.D. 959. It has been contended ( Blum, Y. Z., “Privileges and Immunities of U.N. Personnel in Israel” (1965) 21 HaPraklit 190 Google Scholar) that it has only been laid down that an untransformed treaty cannot be relied upon before a court of law as a source of rights for the individual or of duties for the State, but this does not prevent recognition of the duty of the State to act in accordance with its international obligations. The present writer, however, feels that such a duty has no effective value as far as rights and duties are concerned, which are of such a nature that they can be enforced only through the intermediary of internal law.

5 Of course there is no need for transformation of treaties which are but a codification of international customary rules (Kurz and Latushinsky v. Kirshner, (1967) (II) 21 P.D. 20; The American European Beit El Mission v. Minister of Welfare (1967) (II) 21 P.D. 325, since international custom is part of Israel internal law (Stamper v. A.G. (1956) 10 P.D. 5) unless there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the international norm and a local law (Eichman v. A.G., (1962) 17 P.D. 2033).

6 See e.g., El-Mahmadi v. Custodian of Absentees' Property (1955) 10 P.M. 335.

7 Extradition Law, 1954, 8 L.S.I. 144, articles 2 and 21.

8 See e.g., article 46 A of the Property Tax and Compensation Fund Law, 1961, 15 L.S.I. 101.

9 Kassem and Ziara v. A.G., (1960) 14 P.D. 1065.

10 See references supra n. 5, and Feinberg, N., “Declaratory Treaties and Constitutive Treaties in International Law” (1968) 24 HaPraklit 433 Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., International Law and the State (1971, in Hebrew) 147–148.Google Scholar

11 The author wishes to express her thanks to all those officials who have helped her to collect the information upon which this note is based, and in particular to Dr.Lador-Lederer, Dr. M. Zohari, Mr. N. Tamir and Mr. Y. Yifhar.