This Article discusses the normative basis for the protection of human rights in Israel and discusses various effects of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty enacted in 1992. The Article points out that this “constitutional revolution” affected not only the judiciary, which enforces the protection of human rights, but both the executive and the legislative branches that have also internalized the constitutional revolution, by carefully evaluating every bill proposed and every other government action to ensure that it passes constitutional muster. Additionally, the Article discusses the effect of the constitutional revolution on public discourse in Israel. A central part of the discussion is devoted to the role of the protection of human rights in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and to the role of the protection of human rights during periods of terror activities.

This Article explores the specificity of constitutional interpretation. It cannot be found in its object, but in the quality of the interpreters, the augmentative techniques it applies, and the standards it produces. The interpreters are not only courts, but also non-judicial authorities such as the Executive or the Parliament. Constitutional interpretation by these authorities tends to be exercised collectively. Although the methods that may be used for constitutional interpretation are the same as those used for statutory interpretation, one notices that there is more frequent use of certain types of arguments. But the most important distinctive character of constitutional interpretation lies in the nature of what it produces. Its output is the constitution. This is true first because by deciding what the meaning of the constitutional text is, the interpreter decides on the substance of the constitutional norm. But the interpreter also decides that a particular text, which until the moment of the decision had no legal value or had the value of a statute, has the meaning of a constitutional norm. At the same time he decides that by being a constitutional norm it prevails over other norms and decides what this supremacy entails. It can therefore be said that constitutional interpretation constitutes the Constitution.

Modern equality as derived from the Enlightenment has always had problems with difference. Whereas feudalism set inequality as the baseline, modern society sets equality as the baseline, but allows for unequal treatment based on differences. Thus, differences among the sexes have been invoked to treat women as inferiors and racial differences to deprive racial minorities of equal treatment. Liberalism has countered these moves by promoting a conception of equality as identity according to which race or gender-based differences are irrelevant for purposes of political participation or employment. More recent claims for equality based on identity politics which call for a type of equality that accounts for differences pose vexing problems for liberalism. How should liberalism handle this? By creating exceptions to generally applicable laws? By promoting group-based autonomy and self-government at the risk ofbalkanizing the polity? Or, on the contrary, by rejecting demands for recognition of differences and reinforcing equality as identity? After analyzing the dialectic of equality, this Article argues that, based on commitment to the premise that all human beings share an equal status for possessing the same capacity for moral choice, pluralism offers a better framework than liberalism for the best possible reconciliation of identity and difference. This implies a departure from the monolithic nation-state toward multi-layered interconnected centers of collective autonomy and self-government.

An army attacks a neighborhood where the enemy is hiding among civilians. To what extent is the army required to expose its combatants to life-threatening risks in order to spare enemy civilians? This Article seeks to interpret the pertinent standards and rules of international law from the perspective of the principle of human dignity. The human dignity principle informs the interpretation of the law on the conduct of hostilities and provides a built-in mechanism for improving armies' treatment of enemy civilians. It inspires additional remedial and institutional norms that could overcome armies' distrust of each other during the height of battle. The principle of human dignity recognizes a general duty to strive to reduce harm to enemy civilians as well as specific rules against using them as human shields, hostages, or objects for retaliation. This Article concludes that in general there is no requirement to risk combatants to reduce the risk to enemy civilians, although a number of the specific rules do entail the assumption of such risks.

The German Constitution guarantees freedom of scientific research. This guarantee raises questions, such as its legal definition and scope, as well as possible conflicts with other constitutional rights. This Article suggests that in order to have normative legal consequences, the constitutional concept of science must have an ethical dimension—the importance of the value of research and research for nonbiased “truth.” Such an ethically-loaded definition of science gives rise to internal restrictions, by placing forgery, manipulation, plagiarism and other forms of improper scientific practice outside the scope of constitutional protection. Restrictions to constitutional protection can also be derived from other constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, environmental protection, and the life and health of others. Another arguably important restriction is derived from the right to human dignity, particularly as it touches upon biomedical questions of human cloning and embryo research. This paper argues that the Kantian proscription of treating human beings as a means to an end, which lies at the heart of the right to human dignity, imposes significant restrictions on current trends in biomedicine. These restrictions warn against an implicit utilitarianism that devalues the rights of vulnerable human beings.

This Article challenges the premise that the separation of state and religion is a necessary predicate for religious free exercise. The state's duty to treat people as equals requires it to ensure that all citizens enjoy reasonable access to religious services. Public supply of religious services thus enhances the exercise of freedom of religion. The extent of public involvement in the provision of a religious service is not by itself a sufficient justification for the regulation of the relevant activity. In certain cases, the intervention is justified by reasons that are unrelated to the scope of government involvement. A prominent example is the case of competition between different religious congregations over limited resources, such as space and time at a holy site. Regulation of activity is then required in order to ensure reasonable access. In other cases, the government enhances the powers of religious bodies, and thus generates a concern of religious coercion. In these cases the governmental role may well result in an infringement of religious freedom. However, such a conclusion is not self-evident, and a detailed assessment of the over all effect of the government involvement is required in order to determine whether the involvement—and what type of involvement—is desirable.

These and related arguments are demonstrated through a discussion of the Israeli experience of almost six decades of intensive involvement of a democratic state in supplying religious services. The Israeli case can serve as a thought-provoking hypothetical on the consequences—and thus of the desirability—of adopting a model of extensive establishment of religion(s) by a democratic state.

In 1929, Hans Kelsen published a relatively slim book named On the Essence and Value of Democracy. Surprisingly, only a few segments of it were translated into English. One of the underlying theories elaborated by Kelsen is the need for political parties. Kelsen outlines the main justifications for the existence of political parties as derived from the concepts of liberty, equality, and representation. He concludes that political parties are essential for a modern democracy, and thus the modern state should be a party-state (parteienstaat). The goal of this Article is to outline Kelsen's theory on political parties and understand its historical and theoretical background. Furthermore, it strives to evaluate the relevance of Kelsen's theory on political parties nowadays. Kelsen's work is confronted thus with different parties malfunctioning such as non democratic and self interested parties. Reviewing Kelsen's work, there are also doubts about the proper constitutional status of political parties. Furthermore, there are some interesting possible observations regarding Kelsen's suggestion to recall a representative who shows disloyalty to the party line. This Article will demonstrate that Kelsen's work on political parties was not only innovative, but that it is also relevant to any modern debate about the constitutional status of political parties.

Should the process by which laws are enacted affect their legislative validity? This Article attempts to provide a justification for judicial review of the legislative process and suggests that the court should encourage legislative due process. Lawmaking means responsible lawmaking, and the court should thus be able to ensure a minimal due process of lawmaking by reviewing the legislative process. To date the Israeli Supreme Court has refrained from judicial review of Knesset legislation by virtue of flaws in the legislative process. Recently however, Supreme Court judgments seem to have endorsed a form of judicial review of the legislative process, at least de jure. This Article presents the theoretical and comparative frameworks for judicial review of the legislative process and scrutinizes the law in those countries that conduct judicial review of procedurally defective laws together with an examination of the particular features of the rules governing such review. In comparative law, the characteristics of judicial review of the legislative procedures are similar to those manifested in the question of judicial review of legislation, and based on the same premises. In Israel as well, judicial review of legislation is based on the existence of a supreme constitutional norm, of basic rights and fundamental principles. The Article concludes by proposing that the main characteristics of judicial review: constitutionality, proportionality, and restraint should dictate the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Parliament in all aspects of judicial review.