To mark the twentieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations designated 1968 to be the International Year for Human Rights. The call went out to peoples and States all over the world to give particular thought then to the question of human rights and freedoms and contribute to their promotion and protection. Wherever the subject is raised, discussion will no doubt dwell upon the problems of the present and the future. I believe, however, that this is a suitable occasion to widen the scope, to cast a glance over the past, and to review the role of the Jews and of the “Jewish Question” in the nineteenth, and in the early years of the twentieth, century in instilling the concept of human rights into the conscience of mankind; it is also an opportunity to examine the part played by the Jews in the advancement of those rights at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919–1920.

From an historical point of view, the modern concept of human rights springs essentially from the rationalistic and cosmopolitan philosophy of the Enlightenment prevailing in the second half of the eighteenth century, and from the declarations framed at the end of that century in North America and, subsequently, in France during the Revolution. It was these declarations that laid the foundations of the democratic and liberal State. But the roots of the concept can be traced back to the Stoic philosophy of ancient Greece, to the teachings of the early Roman philosophers and lawyers and to the tenets of the medieval theologians; and it is, indeed, strange that only rarely have those engaged in the history of it made mention of the fact that ancient Hebrew religious thought, too, is concerned with the inherent dignity of Man and gives special prominence to the principle that all who are created in the image of God are equal—a principle clearly reflected in the status which the law of Moses assigns to “the stranger that sojourns among you”, and in the liberal attitude of that law towards the slave, as compared with that of other peoples.

Under the armistice régime, now a matter of history, a peculiar legal situation prevailed in Jerusalem, for no less than four distinct régimes of demilitarization could be found in the city: the Mount Scopus régime, the régime of the Government House Area, the régime of no-man's-land, and the régime of the limitation of military forces and equipment on both sides of the demarcation lines. The object of this article is to examine one of these régimes, that which obtained on Mount Scopus.

Today, the situation in Jerusalem is, of course, drastically changed, both with respect to the régime of the City as a whole, and with respect to Mount Scopus. The Jordanian attack of June 1967 resulted in a unification of this strife-torn city. Mount Scopus, for so long separated from Western Jerusalem, its humanitarian and cultural activities so long paralyzed, is slowly returning to life. The present study, which may be of interest to students of international law and relations, is of historical value only and does not relate to the current situation.

The method followed will be that of a pragmatic case study. In view of the special circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Mount Scopus Demilitarized Zone, a comparative, deductive or theoretical approach would be of limited usefulness. A special effort has been made to use primary rather than secondary sources. The writer has had the opportunity to consult the diplomatic archives of the Government of Israel.

The purpose of this paper is to collect the cases in which the principle of doctrine of unjust enrichment has been explicitly employed by the Israel courts, and to subject them to descriptive and part critical analysis. In so doing it will be possible to indicate the sources and the scope of the principle in its various applications.

One may say immediately that neither the term “unjust enrichment” nor the various categories of which it is or may be the underlying or explanatory principle, such as “quasi-contract”, “constructive trust” or “equitable lien”, figure almost at all in the reports before the establishment of the State in 1948. That is not to say of course that during the period of the Mandate the courts provided no restitutionary remedies in the appropriate circumstances, but it is difficult to gather from the various instances in which rules of a restitutionary nature were applied any independent unifying principle, as some would have it, which might lead to the recognition of a generalized right, or, as others assert, any basic principle that would provide a link connecting the cases and solutions in this area of the law or the pattern into which these might be logically fitted.

Both the facts of The State of Israel v. Siman Tov, and the solution adopted in that case by the Supreme Court, raise, it is felt, a number of legal problems which warrant particular attention.

The respondent, Siman Tov, owner of a grocer's shop, sold goods worth IL. 6,000 on credit to someone called Pressman. When Siman Tov requested payment from Pressman, the latter offered him U.S. $4,000 which Siman Tov was to deposit with a third party of his own choice in return for a loan of IL. 12,000, on the understanding that Siman Tov would deduct the money owing to him from this last sum and hand over the balance of IL. 6,000 to Pressman. Siman Tov accepted the offer and received from Pressman a package containing 4,000 ostensibly genuine dollar banknotes. He then approached a neighbour, Binat, who agreed to accept the dollars as security for a loan of the equivalent sum in Israeli pounds. On examining the package and finding that the dollars were counterfeit, Binat returned them to Siman Tov and refused to go on with the transaction. Siman Tov for his part had believed the notes to be genuine until Binat's disclosure.

The transport of different items of cargo stored in one receptacle called a “container” is of recent origin and has been called the greatest development in transport since the introduction of the steam-engine.

The advantages to be derived from the use of containers are so obvious as hardly to call for explanation. The cargoes sent for transport by different shippers are stored at the beginning of the transport by rail or lorry in a closed container, transferred to a ship and again unloaded on rail or lorry for transport to the place of ultimate destination, and only there is the container opened and the goods discharged. This manner of transport reduces the risk of shortage and damage. Packing material need not be as strong and as heavy as required in the usual way of transport outside a container, the costs of loading and discharging operations are considerably reduced, saving of storage space is possible, ships will be specially adapted for this kind of transport, the time required for the transport of cargo may be considerably shortened, insurance premiums may be calculated in accordance with the diminished risk, demurrage payments may be decreased and all concerned, including the consumer, might benefit from this revolutionary kind of transport. The container can bring the goods, as has been said, “from door to door”.