The Suburban Settlement phenomenon is an integral part of the economic and cultural changes that Israel underwent during the 1970s, including the formation of a local upper-middle class and significant modifications in popular culture. With the liberalization and privatization processes in the Israeli economy, the existing hegemonic cultural elite was able to use its political strength and connections to preserve its status and transform its cultural capital into financial capital, eventually becoming an economic upper-middle class. This process was accompanied by a transition toward a more individualistic and consumerist culture, referred to as the bourgeoisification of Israeli society. Suburban Settlements were larger and more homogeneously planned than Community Settlements. They were usually built by well-connected developers and designated for specific families who were affiliated with leading political parties or key national establishments like the military, defense-affiliated industries and other strategic institutions. This chapter focuses on Kochav Yair, Alfei Menashe, Oranit, and Reut. Analyzing the method of their construction, as well as their urban and architectural characteristics, the chapter illustrates how changes in the settlement development mechanism led to changes in living patterns and transformed the local built environment.

This chapter develops the criteria relevant to assess a dispute resolution mechanism or DRM’s compliance with fair trial standards. The discussion focuses on the three broad fair trial guarantees that an institutional DRM must incorporate if it is to be considered appropriate. These are independence, impartiality and fairness. First, the discussion shows that for a DRM to be considered independent, it must possess institutional, decisional and personal/individual independence. Those three aspects will be explained succinctly. The chapter then focuses on the concept of judicial impartiality. For a fair trial to be provided, impartiality in its objective and subjective sense is critical. Finally, the chapter demonstrates how the right to a fair trial also demands that a claimant is treated fairly. Fairness is a broad guarantee and is explored through seven sub-component fair trial rights. Fairness cannot be achieved unless the right to equal access to the courts, the right to equality of arms, the right to an oral hearing, the right to appeal, the right to a reasoned judgment, the right to access justice without undue delay and the right to an effective remedy are provided for in the law, and importantly, practically realised.

Community Settlements are small-scale nonagricultural villages consisting of a limited number of families and with a relatively homogenous character. They were first established by Israeli planning agencies during the 1970s as a tool to strengthen the state’s territorial and demographic control over predominantly Arab areas like the Galilee and the Green Line. Unlike earlier settlement methods that, as part of the nation-building years, relied on ideological values such as labor, agriculture, redemption, identity, and integration, Community Settlements promoted a more individual and neo-rural lifestyle. This chapter shows how Community Settlements became the new leading tool for a national agenda, corresponding with changing ideas in Israeli culture, which was moving from a quasi-socialist society to a market-driven neoliberal one, later turning the neo-rural phenomenon into a suburban one. The chapter examines six different settlements initiated along the Green-Line between 1977 and 1981 – Sal’it, Reihan, Hinanit, Shaked, Nirit, and Ya’arit. Analyzing the development of these six case studies, and how their built environment changed over the years, this chapter shows how the demand for better living standards in small communities situated away from city centres became the leading force behind the national mission of territorial control in the early 1980s.

This interview never took place, and the interviewer is a fiction of the editors’ imagination. The fact that she is a fiction of the editors’ imagination is entirely immaterial. The frustration felt by the interviewer was very real, and so was her annoyance with some of the editors’ answers. The critical questions that she asks are also very real, and so are the discussions that ensue – they all took place in the real world at one point or another, with colleagues, IGO and NGO officials, and members of the public.

This chapter proposes that a carefully crafted private international law-based framework allocates regulatory authority between the national and institutional orders so as to allow maintaining institutional independence without sacrificing access to justice. It is argued that the ideal approach to implement the proposed regime is through an international arrangement. Of course, international agreements can take time to negotiate. Given that private international law rules can be adjusted nationally without the need for action on the international plain, the proposed framework can be implemented even in the absence of immediate international action. It is submitted that private international law techniques can help bring to an end the denial of justice age for the victims of IO conduct. A conundrum that public international law has not been able to address for decades can readily be resolve using private international law.

When international organizations were first established in the nineteenth century, they were largely seen as self-contained entities, performing functions for their member states but not much else. What was relevant was the set-up of each and every individual organization; nothing more, nothing less. The idea of such organizations entering into arrangements with other organizations, or even with third states, was for a long time considered anathema.

Chapter five discusses the UN’s articulated security project in relation to the concept of legalization. Legalization, whether pinned to an idea of positive doctrinal law or constitutional law, makes law into a continuum that effaces the distinction between juridical and managerial modes. This chapter reinstalls the distinction using infra-law to explore the phenomena described in Part One in terms of interlegality. In a post-Millennium global context, Foucault’s concept of infra-law mutates and the simple situation of interlegality he described in nineteenth-century French prisons, whereby discipline gathers beneath juridical droit, no longer pertains. The chapter describes infra-law as an entangled form of interlegality, whereby juridical forms also collect beneath managerial frameworks, but says that international lawyers have persisted in seeing managerial forms as waystations or helpmeets to juridicism. Using Freud’s distinction between associations of resemblance and associations of contiguity, the chapter explains the alchemy that leads international lawyers to misrecognize managerial technologies as juridico-political instruments.

The present chapter, and the two that follow, will largely address the position of international organizations vis-à-vis the outside world, discussing three broad issues. First, this chapter will be devoted to whether organizations can conclude treaties, and on what basis. The next chapter will discuss with whom they enter into relations, and the subsequent chapter will analyse what will (or may) happen if something goes wrong in relations between an international organization and some other actor.

An oft-heard complaint about the UN is that it does not deliver what it promises. The organization carries the promise of universal peace and security, but sometimes fails to show up in crisis situations, or shows up too late, or does too little. One of the standard replies on the part of the organization is that it lacks the funds, and could do a lot more if only its member states would pay their contributions, and would pay them on time and in good order. And that, in turn, signifies that, however esoteric the topic may seem, the financing of international organizations is of the utmost practical relevance. As Singer put it in the early 1960s: ‘Until the policy decisions of the various organs are translated into budget items, there is no visiting mission to encourage Togoland’s movement toward eventual self-government, no ceasefire observer in the Middle East, no rehabilitation commission in South Korea, and no Public Administration advisor in Santiago.’1

This chapter introduces the UN’s principal approach to dealing with ‘threats without boundaries’, a category that includes terrorism, pandemic disease, WMD proliferation, and organized crime. The UN harnesses managerial governance as a way of countering these threats without resorting to unilateral, militarized responses like the War on Terror. The UN conceptualizes the threats as interdependence problems which call for a joined-up response. The chapter reveals the symmetry of threat and response, showing how each is articulated in three dimensions. First, the transboundary flow of threats calls for multilateral cooperation in response; second, the interconnection of the threats, which aggravate and incubate one another, calls for a comprehensive response; and third, the attribution of a life-span to threats without boundaries, which are serried into emergent, manifest, and residual stages, calls for a continuous response. Managerial governance, the chapter concludes, is produced through the imperative to organize attendant on the complexity that accumulates in a project that is cooperative, comprehensive and continuous.