This chapter considers the challenges posed to the rule of law by Israel’s limited statehood in East Jerusalem. It focuses on the education system, where local resistance to Israeli administration has been the strongest. The chapter analyses Israel’s response to this resistance through three main strategies: enforcement of the law, including through force; adaptation of the law; and turning a blind eye to violations of the law. While, to a large extent, these strategies have succeeded to obfuscate the gap between Israel’s intended policies and realities on the ground, they cannot fully vitiate the impairment of the rule of law, because they themselves compromise it.
Despite the variance among international courts and tribunals in terms of functions and modalities of access, there are fundamental challenges that are common to most, if not all, international courts and tribunals. This chapter offers an overview of these challenges and the manner in which access informs the ability of international courts and tribunals to address them. It focuses on the international courts and tribunals which produce the largest volume of jurisprudence and which are most prominent globally, and whose practice may therefore be regarded as the most significant for identifying current trends. Following a brief review of the principal functions that are common to international courts and tribunals, this chapter considers various trends in the availability of access to courts and examines their effect on the performance of the various functions. It distinguishes between the access of direct parties to disputes, and access of non-parties. It also addresses the relevance of the type of actors, specifically the proliferation of non-state actors, to questions of access. The final section offers some observations on the role of access to international courts and tribunals in the broader debate over the legitimacy of these institutions. KEYWORDS: international courts and tribunals; third parties; non-state actors; functions; access; public authority; legitimacy
The twenty-first century has seen a shift in the focus of the international legal framework for combatting terrorism. Efforts are now focused on addressing the social processes leading to terrorism and preventing the spread of terrorist ideology. Primarily, international instruments call for the criminalization of incitement to terrorism. Such a measure generates tension between counter-terrorism measures and freedom of expression. This chapter focuses on the principal legal instruments adopted in this context, UN Security Council Resolution 1624(2005) and the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. The chapter examines, through a comparative analysis, the manner in which they attempt to resolve the tension between terrorism prevention and international human rights law.
The military courts operating in the West Bank do not ordinarily regard the criminal system they enforce as governed by the law of occupation. Their reasoning for this view reveals that they perceive themselves as quasi-domestic courts. This approach removes the guarantee of basic protection for protected persons under the law of occupation, leaving suspects and defendants hostage to potential vagaries of the military commander in enacting the security legislation. The courts' responses to this shortfall in protection are principally that in practice, many of the international standards have been incorporated into the law applied in the military courts by duplication of Israeli law, and that Israel's High Court of Justice offers means of ensuring compliance of the criminal process with international law. Both responses further reflect the courts' abdication of their role in guaranteeing legal protection under the law of occupation.