In short, Israel is in many ways a mixed court. First, historically, contemporary Israeli law has evolved from a mixture of common law – English and Israeli – and codification; Second, Israeli law currently uses well-developed comparative analysis in a prudent and mature manner. Israel has four courts dealing with immigration matters called courts of appeal. The courts adjudicate appeals concerning visas and the legal status of immigration authorities. Courts of appeal are equivalent to magistrate courts. Their decisions can be challenged in the district courts and, from there, in the Supreme Court. [7] [8] Judges in Israel look outside. Despite the traditional Jewish belief that the people of Israel are a “light unto all nations,” our legal system does not share the idea that we alone can shine and lead the way for other nations. We have never underestimated the values and principles that characterize the most mature jurisdictions, and we understand the benefits of exchanging views. There are many reasons for this openness to foreign law.
In fact, the English language serves as a bridge to the Anglo-American system. But language is not the only reason to refer to the American legal system or Commonwealth legal systems – as mentioned earlier, the fact that many Israeli judges are born or trained abroad, and the legal obligation to refer to foreign law in some cases, are additional reasons for referring to other legal systems. We are, of course, very cautious when it comes to comparative law. You need to be firmly grounded in the system you`re referring to to be sure your rules and ideas are being interpreted correctly. In order to make good use of foreign law, considerable knowledge and experience in foreign and local law is required. Access to foreign law requires both the technical tools to approach the law and an understanding of its normative substance. Israel can serve as a unique example of a multi-tiered mixed legal system. Historically, the Israeli legal system consisted of several chronological “layers.” First, Turkish law, which dates back to Ottoman times – the area that is now the State of Israel was part of the Ottoman Empire for four hundred years – was the law of the land. [1] Essentially, Ottoman law was Islamic religious law, influenced by European law (e.g. Austrian, Swiss and French). [2] Then British law became the law of the land.
At the end of World War I, the area was conquered by the British army and became part of the British Mandate under the League of Nations. For thirty years, the region was heavily influenced by the British legal system. [3] The rules of English common law and the principles of justice were imported into the region. It was not until 1980, more than thirty years after the end of the British Mandate, that these binding links with English common law were severed. [4] After the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and since then, the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – has issued new laws that have transformed the Israeli legal system into a modern one – an original system in many ways. Another aspect of the combination of different legal legacies is the use of comparative research in Israeli jurisprudence. Given the particular nature of the Israeli system, the reference to foreign law in general – and American law in particular – is not obvious. As a system with many peculiarities, one might think that Israel cannot benefit from comparative law. Nevertheless, Israeli courts have always shown a willingness to invoke foreign law. As I have argued, “foreign law” has always been part of the country`s legal system. When the State of Israel was established, the Israeli legislature ruled that whenever there was a loophole in domestic law, the court had to resort to English common law. [30] Since the abolition of this mandatory reference in 1980, reference to foreign law has depended on the willingness and discretion of judges to apply comparative law in their decisions.
[31] The legal obligation to refer to foreign law has been replaced by an impressive willingness to compare laws. The extensive application of foreign law has shaped both the field of public law and the framework of private law. Presumably, our judges` willingness to learn over the years from their counterparts abroad is the result of our country`s mixed legal history, but it is also the result of the “mixed” personal stories of judges – many of whom were born and trained in European countries, the United States or Commonwealth countries – who join forces to create a rich “history of the global chain.” In the Israel Defense Forces, a legal system separate from the civilian legal system is maintained. It is overseen by the military advocate general and has a system of military courts to convict soldiers for crimes and handle criminal and security cases in the Israeli-occupied territories. The three Israeli military districts, the land, air and sea branches of the army, the Home Front Command and the General Staff have military courts. There is also a special military tribunal, and field courts may be established in time of war. The Military Court of Appeals is Israel`s highest military court. It handles appeals by the prosecution and defence to lower military courts. In special cases, a decision of the Military Court of Appeal may be challenged before the Supreme Court, but special permission from the Supreme Court is required, and approval is usually granted only in the event of a significant legal problem.
With regard to the future of mixed jurisdictions and, more generally, the future of all legal systems, I am sure that the global village in which we live will lead to greater mutual influence between legal systems. I believe that the mutual effect between legal traditions is strengthened, not only by the ease of communication between jurists and judges around the world, but also by the fact that we are currently facing common global challenges that require the cooperation of different legal systems. These challenges include cross-border commerce on the Internet, the activities of multinational corporations and the complexity they represent, global environmental issues and international refugee issues. Such challenges are likely to lead to cooperation between countries and encourage the mixing of legal systems, so that our mixed history will continue in the future. The Supreme Court,[2] based in Jerusalem, has final jurisdiction over all other civil and military courts and, in some cases, first-instance jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases. As an appellate court, it hears appeals against judgements and other decisions of district courts and, on rare occasions, receives appeals from labour courts and military courts. It also hears appeals in judicial and quasi-judicial cases of various types, such as issues relating to the legality of Knesset elections and disciplinary decisions of the Bar Association. As the High Court of Justice, it acts as a court of first instance, often in matters of the legality of decisions vis-à-vis public authorities. The Supreme Court, or if not the Israeli Supreme Court, sometimes functions not as an appellate body of the district court, but as the supervisor of justice against the lower courts.
Britain, which received a mandate from the League of Nations to govern Palestine in 1920, introduced the common law system, with the exception of the jury system. Precedents for tort and contract liability have been borrowed from England and certain areas of law have been codified to provide legal certainty. Thus, the penal code in Israel was virtually the same as that used by the British in India or other British colonies and territories. As in most Western countries, the legal system in Israel is constantly evolving. Israel is in many ways a mixed court. Historically, the Land of Israel was governed by Turkish law at the time of the Ottoman Empire, followed by British law at the time of the British Mandate. Today, Israel`s legal system still reflects a mixture of civil and common law. This mixture can be observed, for example, in the combination of the codified right and the previous law.