In difficult times, you need friends. The Legal Friends of the Hebrew University in London, and your many friends elsewhere in the world, have been thinking about you a great deal during recent months. As your President, Professor Magidor, wrote in his moving letter on 31 July, this university symbolizes the values of pluralism and tolerance. You exemplify the spirit of Israel, with your deep historical roots and your encouragement of open debate about the future. It is a great pleasure to be invited to address you today as the Lionel Cohen Lecturer.

My subject concerns the very limits of pluralism and tolerance: the application of human rights in an age of terrorism. When dealing with enemies, politicians need to be tough. In the latest volume of his compelling biography of Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert A. Caro describes the future American president's explanation to his mother in 1956 of why he did not think much of the chances in the presidential election that year of the Democratic Party candidate, Adlai Stevenson: “He's a nice fellow, Mother, but he won't make it ‘cause he's got too much lace on his drawers.”

The threat posed by terrorist enemies understandably provokes politicians to be tough. But how should judges respond when asked to rule on whether a state can afford to grant human rights to those who seek to destroy its very existence? Or, to put it another way, equally tendentious, should judges accept that the State cannot afford to deny human rights to such people if it is to maintain the values which make our society worth defending?

One of the most significant court decisions in copyright law has been the United States Supreme Court's decision in Feist Pub., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., and its path-breaking approach towards the requirement of originality. The grant of copyright protection, in an intangible work, is conditioned upon the fulfillment of the prerequisite of originality. Until the Feist decision, Anglo-American copyright law had a long tradition of interpreting the requirement of originality as imposing a minimum standard of labor, skill or judgment in the production of a work that is not a copy of another work. In Feist, a watershed decision, which had international impact and influence, the United States Supreme Court first introduced the requirement of creativity into Anglo-American copyright law. According to the court's ruling, only works that entail a minimum standard of creativity could pass the threshold of originality and therefore be eligible for copyright protection.

Market power is not ubiquitous; it is limited to certain products, in certain areas, and to certain times. Understanding the limits of the market power possessed by a firm in a given case is essential to the correct assessment of the firm's behavior and its antitrust implications.

The most common method used to identify the scope as well as the strength of a firm's market power is through the definition of relevant markets, calculation of market share and identification of relevant market conditions (e.g., barriers to entry). Correct assessment of suspected market power should relate to all the limits on that power. For that reason, when exploring the possibility that a certain firm possesses market power, a product market definition is of limited use without the support of the relevant geographic market definition.

This is also true of temporal restraints on market power. Some firms may be expected to possess market power (within certain product and geographical bounds) continuously, until a substantial and unexpected change in the industry diminishes their market power or changes its boundaries.

Issues such as prison overcrowding, a growing realization that prisons cannot rehabilitate, and the belief that many inmates could be adequately managed in less intrusive and costly settings, have led Israeli scholars and practitioners, in the last four decades, to devote efforts to the development of alternative sanctions to imprisonment. Specifically, the focus has been on the development and elaboration of alternative sanctions that match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime.

Intermediate sanctions (also called “alternative sanctions,” “alternatives to imprisonment,” or “community-based sanctions”) have been proposed as “ways to manage the burgeoning numbers of offenders without sacrificing public safety.” These punishment options are considered to fall on a continuum between traditional probation supervision and traditional incarceration.