Sweet and sour Policy entrepreneurship and the case of food labelling law in Israel

In general, a conviction may be based on a single piece of evidence or a single testimony if the court is convinced that it proves the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, in some jurisdictions special cases were established by statute and case law in which a single piece of evidence cannot suffice to prove a defendant’s guilt and additional evidence is required to support the main evidence. This rule, known as the Corroborative Rule (hereinafter ‘the rule’ or ‘CR’) constitutes a barrier against conviction on the basis of individual evidence, without the judge or jury cautioning themselves against reliance on a single piece of evidence in order to convict the accused. In general, the requirement for additional evidence exists in cases where there is a single piece of incriminating evidence, but there is concern regarding its reliability. In order to reduce the risk of a mistake that will lead to a false conviction (conviction of an innocent defendant), the law requires additional evidence as a condition for conviction. The first purpose of this article is to provide a comparative-descriptive perspective on the CR as practised in Anglo-American and Israeli law. While in continental law a defendant’s conviction is not subject to any requirement for a specific quantity of evidence, in Anglo-American law there is a clear trend to reduce the application of a requirement for additional evidence. Yet in Israeli law, an opposite trend is evident, expressed in increased application of the Corroborative Rule in order to convict the accused. The second purpose of the article is to undertake a critical examination of the theoretical infrastructure underpinning the CR. According to this infrastructure, the justification for the CR is epistemic and relates, as a rule, to testimony whose reliability is, a priori, dubious. Thus the CR is linked to one of the purposes of some of the rules of criminal proceedings, which is to prevent the conviction of innocent defendants. However, at the same time, the CR restricts judicial discretion and harms the prosecutor’s and the court’s ability to ensure conviction of guilty defendants, even in cases where there is a single piece of evidence, which the court trusts. The first section provides a comparison of the use of the CR in English, Canadian, Scottish, American and Israeli law. The second section is devoted to the description of the theoretical infrastructure of the CR, while the third section contains a critical discussion on both the theoretical infrastructure described in the second section and also the requirement for evidential supplements, in general. To conclude the article, I provide a summary of its contents.

In order to determine what major developments have taken place in tax law in Israel over the last 40 years, it is first necessary to formulate criteria with which to estimate the importance or centrality of changes in tax legislation. The emphasis here is on legal developments (in legislation and case law) rather than on changes in the tax system and tax policy. In the field of taxation, legal, economic and social questions are, however, interlinked; and it is moreover, a legal tool — legislation — that determines the tax system and its composition of various tax bases.

Liability of the State and of Public Authorities in Negligence in Israel – A Slippery Slope (in Hebrew)

Sweet and Sour Policy Entrepreneurship and the Case of the Food Labelling Law in Israel

Privacy protection as a case study in personal rights protection in Israeli law

חוזים עושקים – השראה אפשרית מן המשפט העברי <br> Oppressive contracts: Possible inspiration from Jewish law

Like in most Western countries, the legal system in Israel is constantly evolving. Israel is a mixed jurisdiction in many respects. Historically, during the time of the Ottoman Empire, the land of Israel was ruled by Turkish law, which was followed by British law during the time of the British Mandate. Today, Israel’s legal system still reflects a mixture of civil law and common law. This mixture is evident, for example, in the combination of codified law and precedent-based law. Several areas of the law were codified, at the time of the British Mandate, in ordinances that remain binding today. However, these ordinances were supplemented and widely interpreted in Israel’s case law, and an “Israeli common law” was created. Today, legislative efforts are being made to codify this new common law. The mixed nature of substantive law in Israel is also illustrated by Israel's constitutional regime. While Israel has no formal constitution, it has a partial bill of rights (the basic laws) enacted by its parliament. In 1995, the Israeli Supreme Court decided, referring to American constitutional law, that it had the authority to invalidate “unconstitutional laws”. In its decision, the Supreme Court relied on a limitation clause, included in the new basic laws and inspired by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since then, the Israeli Supreme Court has developed a number of constitutional rights from these basic laws, influenced by both the American concept of liberty and the European concept of human dignity. Finally, comparative law plays an important role in Israeli case law. While British common law no longer binds the Israeli judiciary, judges have wide discretion to use comparative law in their decisions. When relevant, referring to foreign law may be of great assistance to a judge by providing inspiration in a difficult case. Utilizing many different sources of law may help to create harmony between various jurisdictions, especially in times of increasing globalization.

Israeli law supplies multiple legal sources for protection of human rights: constitutional protection, criminal protection, administrative protection and civil law- mostly tort law- protection. These sources supply protection against both public (state and public authorities, bodies, officers) and private (personal as well as legal entities) violations of human rights. This papers deals with the relevant causes of action by which Israeli courts compensate for the harm caused by human rights violations. We shall mainly deal with tort law, yet since the interplay among the multiple sources of protection is sometime complicated and unclear we shall have to relate to constitutional/penal law as well, but only when directly relevant to the main issue of the paper. Two main consequences follow. First, the current law in Israel portrays a very well equipped toolkit. Second, nevertheless, case law still grapples with the idea of finding a well -balanced avenue to impose absolute liability for violations of human rights regardless of fault, negligence or any other deviation from reasonable conduct on the part of the state and its organs and/or officers in certain limited type of circumstances.

Stereotyping Women, Individualizing Harassment: The Dignitary Paradigm of Sexual Harassment Law between the Limits of Law and the Limits of Feminism

The United States Supreme Court has recently defined the phrase “gray-market good” as: “a foreign-manufactured good, bearing a valid United States trademark, that is imported without the consent of the U.S. trademark holder”. The importation of genuine goods by someone other than the designated exclusive importers, which is usually referred to as “parallel importation”, is not a new phenomenon. Nevertheless, in the last ten years the volume of gray market goods has increased dramatically and the issue has received considerable attention from the courts, the news media and numerous legal commentators. The imports are “parallel” in the sense that they are made by the same manufacturer who makes the domestic trademark owner's goods. They are “gray-market” goods since they are legitimately sold abroad, but are not authorized by the domestic trademark owner for sale in the domestic market. The goods are also “genuine” in the sense that tney are manufactured by the same source as the domestic owner's goods. The problem of parallel importation is a worldwide one which has been solved through case law in most countries. This article reviews recent developments in the United States and Israel concerning parallel importation.

The Impact of the EU Court of Justice on the Israeli Legal System

It is a signal honour to have been invited to lecture at this world-renowned University—located, as some geographers would have it, at the very centre of the world. Certainly all eyes are concentrated on it at the moment. And it is an exhilarating thought that perhaps this new Law Centre will generate new legal approaches which we all seek, far transcending the limited legal problem and its solutions which we discuss tonight.Let me say at once that in comparing Israeli and United States company law, I speak about your half of the subject—Israeli law—with much diffidence, although I am emboldened by the realization that every student of comparative law inevitably feels somewhat insecure in his grasp of law outside his own country. Still when I pondered what would be the most useful area for this lecture, I was struck by a fundamental similarity—for although we are separated geographically by half the world, the basic concerns of corporate investors are the same the world over: (1) an agreed-upon allocation of the rewards, if the corporate venture prove successful, and (2) control over management of the enterprise into which they have put their capital. Of first concern then is the law governing the corporate structure since this is what determines the investors' financial and voting rights, and secondly, the law protecting the investor against an unresponsive or irresponsible management. The legal sanctions here involved—statute law or case law—are a matter of concern to foreign capital. The reaction of foreign investors should be of special interest to you because Israel's social, economic, and political goals cannot be achieved without a substantial influx of capital investment from the outside. Foreign investors can operate either through foreign corporations doing business in Israel or through Israeli-formed companies. Tonight, because of time limitations, we confine ourselves to Israeli-formed companies. Other problems for a foreign investor, such as foreign exchange controls, do merit more than passing reference—but we cannot take time to elaborate them.

The Electronic Commerce Bill and the Integrative Adaptation Model of E-Commerce Regulation and Taxation

This article first reviews key issues in Israeli arbitration law, and then discusses the Israeli trust and its creation modalities. It then focuses on the validity of arbitration agreements with respect to trust disputes under Israeli law by reviewing the relevant case law. In this context, the article distinguishes between commercial trusts set up by contract, charitable trusts and trusts set up as estate planning instruments. The article goes on to highlight the difficulty of imposing arbitration on beneficiaries of a trust, and finally concludes.

The Israeli radical judicial overhaul program, aiming to seriously weaken the judiciary, has led the country to the brink of chaos and violence, with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the streets, society tearing itself apart and numerous sectors of society, such as medical service or reservists of IDF, announcing a suspension of their service to a nation they fear will no longer be a democracy. Despite the strong social protest, Knesset – representing an extremely right-wing coalition – adopted on the July 24, 2023 the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary to bar the judiciary from striking down decisions of the government and its ministers on the grounds of such decisions being unreasonable. The measure known as the reasonableness clause (standard) is rooted in English and American case law and it is frequently used in Israel to control administrative activity. It allows the courts to strike down governmental and administrative decisions and their regulations seen as having not taken into account all the relevant considerations of a particular issue, or not given the correct weight to those considerations – even if they do not violate any particular law or administrative rulings. The current right-wing coalition, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that the clause as it stands gives too much power to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice, to interfere with the actions of the executive, and that the powers of judges, who are not elected by the public, remain out of control in this procedure. Opponents of the government’s amendment argue that this standard is crucial in helping to protect civil rights that are not fully defined in Israeli law. Eliminating the standard of reasonableness will be another step towards giving the government unlimited power. It violates not only the separation of powers principle and the rule of law but it also harms the right to good administration. Irrespective of the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the government’s amendment, the struggle to maintain the democratic principles of the Israeli system will continue. Despite the strong social protest, Knesset – representing extremely right-wing coalition –adopted on the 24th of July 2023 the amendment to Basic Law: Judiciary to bar the judiciary from striking down decisions of the government and its ministers on the basis of being unreasonable. The measure known as the reasonableness clause (standard) is rooted in English and American case law bless and it is frequently used in Israel to control the administrative activity. It allows the courts to strike down governmental and administrative decisions and their regulations seen as having not taken into account all the relevant considerations of a particular issue, or not given the correct weight to those considerations – even if they do not violate and particular law or administrative rulings. The current right-wing coalition, led by Beniamin Netanyahu, argues that the clause as it stands gives too much scope to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice, to interfere with the actions of the executive, and that the powers of judges, who are not elected by the public, remain out of control in this procedure. Opponents to the government’s amendment argue that this standard is crucial in helping to protect civil rights that are not fully defined in Israeli law. Eliminating the standard of reasonableness will be another step towards giving the government unlimited power. It violates not only the separation of powers principle and rule of law but it also harms the right to good administration. Irrespectively of the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the government's amendment, the struggle to maintain the democratic principles of the Israeli system will continue.