Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T14:04:59.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Supreme Court of Israel: Present Trends and Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Get access

Extract

Our concepts and values are part and parcel of a philosophy broader than law, according to the expression used by Justice Robert Jackson in his description of the place of the Supreme Court as a unit in the complex and interdependent scheme of the democratic system of government. Drawing from the multitude of conceptions and ways of thought which characterize the Weltanschauung of the protagonists of a system of law based on the belief in the rights of the individual and in the rule of law, I would like to mention three aspeots and dwell on two of them in some detail. The first is represented by the evolutionary approach in the interpretation of the law; the second aspect is the permanent concern for judicial independence, and the third is transmuted into the ongoing mission of the court to enable human beings, as such, to confront the problems created by the effacing effects of modern society. The three above-mentioned aspects are separate but, in my opinion, not only do they overlap when we try to classify the phenomena representing them, but they are at least co-related and often even interdependent. Let us turn first of all to what I termed the evolutionary approach.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1985

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 Haim Cohn, H., “The Lesson of Jewish Law for Legal Change” in Jewish Law and Current Legal Problems (Jerusalem, 1984) 17Google Scholar.

2 Time destroys everything.

3 Courts Law, 1957 (11 L.S.I. 157) now sec. 20 of Basic Law: Adjudication (S.H. 1110, p 78).

4 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716).

5 S.H. 1068, p. 3 replacing the law of 1964 (18 L.S.I. 51).

6 Harter Act of 1893, 27 Stat. Chap. 105, sec. 1.

7 Zim v. Maziar (1963) 17 P.D. 1319, 1329 and cf. Baltimore and Ohio S.W.R. Co. v. Voigt (1900) 20 S. Ct. 385; 176 U.S. 498.

8 33 L.S.I. 31.

9 Yardenia v. Ofer Bros. Co. (1976) 30(i) P.D. 29; Ports Authority v. Ararat (1977) 31(i) P.D. 533.

10 (1979) 33(ii) P.D. 281.

11 See also Novitz v. Leibovitz (1982) 36(i) P.D. 537.

12 (1979) 33(ii) P.D. 256.

13 In conversion, Goldkorn v. Wissotzky (1954) 8 P.D. 262.

14 In relation to loss of income in consequence of bodily injury, see Atya v. Rosenbaum (1954) 8 P.D. 1135.

15 Kalanit Hasharon, (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 533.

16 Laski, Harold, A Grammar of Politics (1925) 578Google Scholar.

17 Harlow, Carol and Rawlings, Richard, Law and Administration, (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1984) 1Google Scholar.