This article contributes to the understanding of why states resort to targeted, or smart, sanctions to meet the threat of cyber intrusions and whether this type of response is a forced measure or an effective tool to halt, prevent and punish attacking states. The tools of analysis used in the article are legal positivism and political theories, including Mancur Olson's theory of groups and Francesco Giumelli's analytical framework for assessment of sanctions. The authors address the effectiveness of sanctions as a reaction to cyber-enabled activities through the lens of regulation introduced in the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom, which are the most developed counter-cyber sanction regimes, analysing publicly known cases of cyber-related sanctions.

The Psalmist's wrote: “For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me up”. The eleventh-century commentator Rashi explains that this abandoned child, forsaken by his father and mother, is actually a fetus. “For my mother and father have forsaken me — [i.e.] during coition, they thought of their own enjoyment, and having finished their enjoyment, he turns away and she turns away; But the Lord will take me up — [i.e.] the Holy One Blessed Be He protects the semen and creates the fetus”. This graphic and surprisingly poignant depiction of the bedroom is an attempt to portray man's existential solitude from the very moment of conception. He is abandoned by his parents, who were partners to his conception. They forsake him as soon as they complete their sexual intercourse, since their exertions were meant for pleasure, not for childbirth. At this point, intercession comes from God, whom the Sages elsewhere say is the third partner to the creation of man. God assumes responsibility for the continued development of the embryo from conception onward. The underlying assumption of this view is that childbirth is an incidental byproduct of sexual relations, which are primarily intended for mutual pleasure.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established by the First Hague Convention of 1899 on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, as revised by the First Hague Convention of 1907 on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. It is not a court in the accepted sense of the word, but consists of a panel of persons able and willing to assume the duties of arbitrator in international disputes. Israel acceded to the First Hague Convention of 1907 on 17 June 1962. Under the Convention, each State Party is entitled to form a “national group” of arbitrators, not more than four in number, and their names are included in the panel. The Israel national group today consists of the following (in order of appointment): Shabtai Rosenne (1962), Moshe Landau (1968), Meir Shamgar (1989), and Ruth Lapidoth (1989).

Transplantation of organs from live persons may take place without any payment to the donors, and this involves relatively few moral problems. Gift donation appears to be widely accepted as a laudable and welcome form of benevolence. Even though an organ gift may entail some risk to the donor, his or her consent — provided that it is freely given and properly informed — renders such risk non-objectionable.

Gift donation cannot, however, be expected to fill the large and growing demand for transplant organs. Thus, the issue of a market in organs has for some years now been the subject of ethical and legal scrutiny, and has been addressed by (generally prohibitive) legislation. What follows is intended as a critical survey, focusing initially on organ-buying, and then on organ-selling.

Religious or communal affiliation is one of the major factors in the choice of law and jurisdiction in matters of personal status. First, a religious court has jurisdiction only if all parties belong to the religion or community of that court. Where the parties involved in a matter of personal status belong to different religious communities, only the President of the Supreme Court is entitled to confer jurisdiction upon a particular religious court. Secondly, religious affiliation determines the bond between a person and the substantive law which will apply to any matter of his personal status. The importance of such affiliation is declining as legislation fixing unified, territorial norms applicable to all religions and communities increases. However, because personal law continues to play a major role in our legal system, religious affiliation, too, continues to be a focal point of interreligious disputes. Here the lack of a consistent, unified system for regulation of these inter-religious disputes is particularly noticeable, and the solutions proposed are remarkable for their pragmatism and their evasion of the basic problems.

The purpose of this short essay is to examine how the constitution could contribute in the area of substantive criminal law. We should distinguish between two levels: the theoretical level and the realistic level. From a theoretical point of view, a lot could be expected from judicial review. The reason is the very broad gap between the principles of criminal law and the norms and real life of criminal law. Judicial review can function as a guardian — perhaps the guardian of the principles of criminal law.

To exemplify the gap between criminal law in theory and criminal law in practice, it is sufficient to mention three issues: Criminal law in theory is an instrument of last resort, but the reality of criminal law is that it is often an instrument of first resort. Secondly, in theory, the most basic principle of criminal law is the principle of legality, of prior warning, but when we read the statutory provisions of criminal law we understand that the citizen is not the real addresee of these norms. When we read case law in criminal law, we find out that real interpretation in criminal law has very little to do with prior warning.

Since the preceding article was written, the Kahn Committee, mentioned therein, has presented its report with a minority report by one of its members on the communications media. The central feature of the report is the Bill of a Protection of Privacy Law which the Committee recommends; a copy of the Bill is appended to show Israel thinking on the subject and to illustrate how far the Bill meets the matters raised by Dr. Gavison.

Apart from a very general discussion of the problems involved, the report contains a brief sketch by Dr. N. Rakover of those aspects of the subjects which are covered by traditional Jewish law and a comparative study by Dr. Gavison herself of the position mainly in the U.S.A., England, Germany, France and Canada and incidentally in Sweden, Switzerland, the Argentine, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, with special reference to recent legislation.

For the record it may be noted that the Committee was appointed in August 1974 by the Minister of Justice to examine the means by which protection of privacy can be secured. It held 16 meetings and heard or received in writing the views of various institutions and individuals.

In Israeli law eighteen statutes now regulate the legal status of various kinds of disabled persons. These statutes apply to about twice the number of different categories of disabled persons, classified in groups or classes, according to the cause and circumstances of disablement. Ignoring voluntary arrangements, the number of legal statuses or classifications (i.e. the complex of legal rights, pecuniary and in specie, together with the conditions of entitlement) may be put at eleven, which includes groups of people disabled de facto who are not recognised as disabled under law since they do not come within the statutory definition of disablement or otherwise meet the conditions of entitlement. The number of statuses is smaller than the number of statutes because some of the latter merely extend the application of other statutes in pari materia.

If we address ourselves to the substance of the legal status of these disabled persons, the general impression obtained reflects a kind of order of preference among the different groups, sometimes with considerable gaps. At the lowest level are the most deprived, the de facto disabled, who lack all rights as such, and the ordinary disabled (those who do not fall into any specific category but are recognised as disabled—the “new” and “long-standing” invalids of Chapter 6B of the National Insurance Law (Consolidated Version), 1968, in respect of whom a paucity of rights exists, in the nature only of ultimum subsidium. At the upper level stand the most preferred groups under existing law, traffic-accident victims and disabled soldiers.

According to the famous “Coase Theorem”, market forces, under given conditions, will automatically, without any external intervention, bring about an efficient allocation of resources. These conditions, necessary for the smooth operation of the “invisible hand” which leads to efficiency, are denoted as “absence of transaction costs”, as the presence of transaction costs may impede this desired process. The main legal implication outlined by Coase is that absent transaction cost, there is no need, and no place, from an efficiency point of view, for liability rules: resource allocation would be the same either with or without them. An act which is efficient will be carried out despite a liability rule which imposes the burden of compensation on the actor. On the other hand, an inefficient act will be barred by market forces without the help of liability rules.

I first met Ze'ev Falk early in 1967, when I spent two months in Jerusalem in the course of my doctoral studies (with David Daube, in Oxford). His friendship and generosity to me during that period remain strong in my memory. Not only did 10 Harav Berlin become a home from home; from there he assisted me to meet others (not least, Nahum Rakover) who also became, in the years that followed, close colleagues and associates. His studies in Biblical legal terminology proved of great assistance to me, and his Hebrew Law in Biblical Times remains a useful starting point for the study of biblical legal institutions. In many respects, his early concentration on biblical law provided the foundations for his later thinking, for which he was perhaps better known in Israel, on the values of Jewish law and the problems presented by Jewish family law in modern times. I offer my tribute in the form of a study of Exodus 21:18–19, a text which, apart from its particular problems and interest, has proved a focus for debate upon the general character of early biblical law, and in particular the casuistic provisions of the Mishpatim.

States have their nationals and religions have their religionists, each of whom shares in a distinct and inherited identity. In considering whether Jewry is one of those communities which consists of dependents born into it, three distinct variations arise: there are those who recognize that Jewry is a unitary group with the right to have a National Home; there are those who hold that Jewry, as a community, must be combatted as an enemy; there are those who view Jewry as a group of individuals, the interests of which Jewish organizations (not necessarily of a Zionist orientation) have found it to be their responsibility to safeguard in situations where their interests were not safeguarded as nationals of specific States.

In politological terms, the first and third combine positively and the second and third negatively, but in each combination Jewish organizations were faced with the obligation to act on an international level under conditions and by means so novel in terms of international practice that they were termed unprecedented and sui generis, and for which international law had no place to integrate the kind of non-governmental protective activity which was evoked, or to illustrate how a victim's experience creates law, or how scattered communities operate generically, within patterns exclusive to them.

This comment to Jeff McMahan's thought-provoking contribution does not aim to take issue with the interesting and rather compelling philosophical arguments he raises in support of moral-based norms. In the same vein, the comment does not criticize the way in which McMahan describes the international law doctrines governing war situations—a description which is generally accurate. Instead, I comment on the policy reasons that have led international law-maker to move away from some of the morality-based distinctions and normative choices expounded by McMahan. Hence, my focus in this comment is on the pragmatic constraints that limit the influence of moral ideas on the laws of war. Of course, the resort to pragmatism may be in itself morally justifiable, as the insistence on the application of pragmatic consideration is often linked to the promotion of laudable goals—aversion of war and reduction of casualties and damage. Hopefully, a better understanding of the reasons underlying the rejection of “pure morality” in the context of the regulation of war would contribute to a critical assessment of the desirability of McMahan's ideas and to identification of the institutional conditions that could facilitate their application.

We know nothing of the local organization of the Jews in the Visigothic kingdom. It seems likely that their communities (called conventus in the statutes) preserved the same framework as they had had under the Roman rule. Recognized by law as long as the Jewish cult was licit, the Jewish communities were to be deprived of their legal existence by those kings who compelled the Jewish to baptism.

Thus we have no information about their internal organization during either the Arian or Catholic regimes, save for some fragmentary data which have reached us concerning two Jewish communal institutions.

I am the fortieth person to have given the Lionel Cohen lecture since 1953 when Professor Arthur Goodhart gave the first lecture in this series. The lecture was founded by, and in the name of one of British Jewry's most distinguished figures and the list of Lionel Cohen lecturers is illustrious indeed. It is a great honour to have been asked to join their company. For me it has an additional pleasure — my late father, Dr. Walter Zander, was closely involved in the establishment of the lecture and in its development for its first eighteen years. From 1944 to 1971 my father was Secretary of the British Friends of the Hebrew University and the annual event of the Lionel Cohen lecture and the subsequent “report back” dinner at Lincoln's Inn was a part of his work which he always enjoyed and regarded as of importance. I obviously regret that he did not live long enough to see his eldest son honoured in this way.

In the decisions of the Israel Supreme Court delivered since the establishment of the State, one sometimes comes across the express or implied statement of the rule that:

The object of this article is to clarify a few aspects of this rule (which, for the sake of brevity, will be referred to as the rule of “constructive intention”).