The Legacy of Justice Aharon Barak: A Critical Review
In: Harvard International Law Journal Online, Band 48, S. 83-92
65 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Harvard International Law Journal Online, Band 48, S. 83-92
SSRN
In: Israel Studies Review, Band 34
SSRN
In: 47 Tulsa Law Review 437 (2012)
SSRN
In: Human rights law review, Band 16, Heft 1, S. 175-176
ISSN: 1744-1021
In: International human rights law review, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 317-320
ISSN: 2213-1035
Whether examining election outcomes, the legal status of terrorism suspects, or if (or how) people can be sentenced to death, a judge in a modern democracy assumes a role that raises some of the most contentious political issues of our day. But do judges even have a role beyond deciding the disputes before them under law? What are the criteria for judging the justices who write opinions for the United States Supreme Court or constitutional courts in other democracies? These are the questions that one of the world's foremost judges and legal theorists, Aharon Barak, poses in this book. In fluen.
In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 227-272
ISSN: 1938-2545
Abstract
There is renewed scholarly interest in studying the dynamics of constitutional revolutions and the explanations for the rise of constitutional courts around the world. At the same time, there is growing discussion of democratic backsliding and concern that democracies are exhibiting extremism, weakening of opposition forces and constitutional courts, and violations of civil and political rights that are pertinent to vibrant democracies. Scholars try to study both phenomena and understand the relationship between them. Israel is an important case study for both agendas. This Article analyzes the jurisprudence of Aharon Barak, one of the greatest jurists of our time with a worldwide reputation for revolutionizing both Israeli constitutional law and comparative constitutional law. It explains the tactics and strategy used by Barak to revolutionize Israeli constitutional law on issues of reasonableness, proportionality, standing, justiciability, constitutional review, equality, and supra-constitutional law. It reveals how each revolution paved the way for the next. It offers explanations for the effectiveness of these judicially-led revolutions as well as possible bases for their legitimation. Barak was a common law judge and ultimately treated parliamentary sovereignty as a doctrine arising from common law and constrained by common law, though he never quite put it in these terms. The Article concludes with explanations for the political backlash experienced by the current Israeli Supreme Court that some have characterized as democratic backsliding. It argues that the Court contributes to the development of law as part of a dialog and interaction between the different branches of government. As the Court operates within these dynamics, it must understand and take into account the institutional, political, and social environments in which it operates to preserve legitimacy and achieve efficacy. Barak was a strategic player that laid foundations for an expansive judicial power, but his Court was very prudent in utilizing that power. His successors may have contributed unintentionally to the backlash against the Court by following Barak's substantive jurisprudence, but not necessarily his prudent tactics and strategy.
In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 1-16
ISSN: 1938-2545
This essay focuses on proportionality stricto sensu as a consequential test of balancing. The basic balancing rule establishes a general criterion for deciding between the marginal benefit to the public good and the marginal limit to human rights. Based on the Israeli constitutional jurisprudence, this essay supports the adoption of a principled balancing approach that translates the basic balancing rule into a series of principled balancing tests, taking into account the importance of the rights and the type of restriction. This approach provides better guidance to the balancer (legislator, administrator, judge), restricts wide discretion in balancing, and makes the act of balancing more transparent, more structured, and more foreseeable.The advantages of proportionality stricto sensu with its three levels of abstraction are several. It stresses the need to always look for a justification of a limit on human rights; it structures the mind of the balancer; it is transparent; it creates a proper dialog between the political brunches and the judiciary, and it adds to the objectivity of judicial discretion. Proportionality stricto sensu however has it critics: some claim that it attempts to balance incommensurable items; others that balancing is irrational. The answer to the critics is that it is a common base for comparison, namely the social marginal importance and that the balancing rules—basic, principled, concrete—supply a rational basis for balancing. A democracy must entrust the judiciary—the unelected independent judiciary—to be the final decision-maker—subject to constitutional amendments—about proper ends that cannot be achieved because they are not proportionality stricto sensu.
This book presents a comprehensive theory of legal interpretation, by a leading judge and legal theorist. Currently, legal philosophers and jurists apply different theories of interpretation to constitutions, statutes, rules, wills, and contracts. Aharon Barak argues that an alternative approach--purposive interpretation--allows jurists and scholars to approach all legal texts in a similar manner while remaining sensitive to the important differences. Moreover, regardless of whether purposive interpretation amounts to a unifying theory, it would still be superior to other methods of interpr
In: 14 LAW & ETHICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 227(2020)
SSRN
Working paper
In: Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Preface to the Updated Edition -- Foreword -- Introduction -- 1. "Of All Members of the Human Family" -- 2. "Not ... a Mere Plaything" -- 3. "The Minimum Necessities of Life" -- 4. "Master of One's Fate" -- 5. "What Respect Is Due" -- 6. "The Beginning and the End of the State" -- Notes -- Index -- Acknowledgments
In: Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law, S. 53-74
In: Nuovi studi politici: rivista bimestrale, Band 33, Heft 1, S. 59-68
In: Pouvoirs: revue française d'études constitutionnelles et politiques, Heft 72, S. 17-36
ISSN: 0152-0768
In: Cambridge studies in constitutional law 2
Having identified proportionality as the main tool for limiting constitutional rights, Aharon Barak explores its four components (proper purpose, rational connection, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu) and discusses the relationships between proportionality and reasonableness and between courts and legislation. He goes on to analyse the concept of deference and to consider the main arguments against the use of proportionality (incommensurability and irrationality). Alternatives to proportionality are compared and future developments of proportionality are suggested