Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:52:10.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Public Law Research in Israel: A Gaze Westwards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2019

Margit COHN
Margit COHN*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a typology of comparative law research and assesses the state of this body of research in one Asian country – the State of Israel. To identify the work that should be considered ‘comparative’, I classify studies into three groups. Following a short overview of Israel's political and legal system, I assess the ways comparative public law is addressed in the country. Relying on a first-of-its-kind quantitative study of Israeli legal scholarship in English in the field of public law that compares at least two systems, the article shows that the compared systems in Israeli comparative legal research are predominantly western, and that materials from the United States by far outweigh all other sources. The article then considers several possible reasons for the limited gaze eastwards and beyond the United States, granting special attention to the cultural ‘Americanization’ of Israel. Directions for future research are considered in the conclusion, including the expansion of the findings from public law to other fields of law; the comparison of these findings with those of similar systems in Asia and beyond; and the possible ways legal education may promote the development of eastern-bound comparative exercises.

Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 14 , Supplement S1 , October 2019 , pp. S11 - S27
Copyright
Copyright © National University of Singapore, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Henry J and Fannie Harkavy Chair in Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

References

1. Zweigert, Konrad and Kötz, Hein, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Weir, Tony tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998) 15–31Google Scholar.

2. Cohn, Margit, A Theory of the Executive Branch: Tension and Legality (OUP, forthcoming)Google Scholar. See also Cohn, Margit, ‘Tension and Legality: Towards a Theory of the Executive Branch’ (2016) 29 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. For the principle, see Zweigert and Kötz (n 1) 34–44. Without entering the debate over the nature and viability of this principle (see eg Frankenberg, Günter, ‘Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law’ (1985) 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411, 434–40Google Scholar; Husa, Jaakko, ‘Farewell to Functionalism or Methodological Tolerance?’ (2003) 67 Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 419Google Scholar; Michaels, Ralf, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann, Mathias and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (OUP 2006) 339Google Scholar), the principle focuses on effects and law-in-action, rather than on formal rules, thereby enabling comparison between systems lacking formal similarities, both in structure and rule-content.

4. This survey draws on Navot, Suzie, Constitutional Law of Israel (Kluwer Law International 2007)Google Scholar; Cohn, Margit, Energy Law in Israel (Kluwer Law International 2010) 17–39Google Scholar. See also Zamir, Itzhak and Colombo, Sylviane (eds), The Law of Israel: General Surveys (Faculty of Law, University of Haifa 1995) 3–4Google Scholar; Maoz, Asher, ‘The System of Government in Israel’ (1988) 8 Tel Aviv University Studies in Law 9Google Scholar.

5. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, its population at the end of March 2019 was 9,009,000. See Central Bureau of Statistics, ‘Population’ <www.cbs.gov.il/EN/pages/default.aspx> accessed 18 May 2019. The data regarding area size include the occupied territories, some of which are already governed by the Palestinian Authority – an issue highly contested domestically and internationally. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Israel - Size and Dimension’ (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013) <https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Israel-Size-and-Dimension.aspx> accessed 18 May 2019.

6. The most recent extension of the state of emergency (at the time of writing) was declared by the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) on 16 July 2018, effective until 16 July 2019. See Declaration of State of Emergency, Yalkut Ha-Pirsumim 5778, No 7883, 9914 (16 July 2018) (in Hebrew).

7. Conflicts recognized as wars are the War of Independence (1948–49), the Suez War (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Lebanon War (1982), the Second Lebanon War (2006), and the Gaza Wars and operations (2008–09, 2012, and 2014).

8. Formal negotiations include the peace treaties with Egypt (in 1979, following the Camp David Accords in 1978), the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty (in 1994), and negotiations and several agreements signed with Palestinian and other Arab representatives (the Madrid and Oslo Accords in 1991–93; the Wye River Memorandum in 1998; the Camp David Summit in 2000; the Beirut Summit in 2000; and the ‘Road Map’ in 2002). Since then, there has been no real progress towards a settlement. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Guide to the Mideast Peace Process’ (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013) <https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/GUIDE%20TO%20THE%20MIDEAST%20PEACE%20PROCESS.aspx> accessed 18 May 2019.

9. See eg Defence Regulations, 1936, Palestine Gazette Extraordinary Supp 2, No 584, 259 (19 April 1936); Defence Regulations, 1939, Palestine Gazette Extraordinary Supp 2, No 914, 659 (26 August 1939); Food and Essential Commodities (Control) Ordinance, No 34 of 1939, Palestine Gazette, No 913, 83 (26 August 1939); Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1940, Palestine Gazette Extraordinary No 991, 383 (9 March 1940).

10. Reception of colonial law was decreed in s 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708–1948, Laws of the State of Israel, Vol 1, 7 (14 May 1948) (English translation), and confirmed in HCJ 5/48 Leon v Yehoshua Gubernik, 1 IsrSC 58 (SCt) (English translation at 1 Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel (IsrSJ) 41; Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\48\050\000\Z01&fileName=48000050_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019); HCJ 10/48 Zeev v Yehoshua Gubernik, 1 IsrSC 85 (SCt) (English translation at 1 IsrSJ 68; Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\48\100\000\Z01&fileName=48000100_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019). See Yadin, Uri, ‘Reception and Rejection of English Law in Israel’ (1962) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedmann, Daniel, ‘Infusion of the Common Law into the Legal System of Israel’ (1975) 10 Israel Law Review 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note on citation of Israeli cases: the Hebrew-language source is cited for all non-translated decisions; translations to English are cited where available.

11. Palmer, Vernon Valentine, ‘Introduction to the Mixed Jurisdictions’ in Palmer, Vernon Valentine (ed), Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family (CUP 2001) 3Google Scholar. The move towards reform of private law under a continental template was substantially aided by the ‘Codification Project’, led by the Justice Ministry, starting in the 1960s. See eg Lerner, Pablo and Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai, ‘The (Re) Codification of Israeli Private Law: Support for, and Criticism of, the Israeli Draft Civil Law Code’ (2011) 59 American Journal of Comparative Law 763CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Among the central fields of private law, only tort law remains a statute that originated in the Mandate period. See ibid 769.

12. See eg Jacobsohn, Gary Jeffrey, Apple of Gold: Constitutionalism in Israel and the United States (Princeton University Press 1993)Google Scholar; Barzilai, Gad, ‘Courts as Hegemonic Institutions: The Israeli Supreme Court in a Comparative Perspective’ (1998) 5(2–3) Israel Affairs 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dotan, Yoav, ‘Judicial Accountability in Israel: The High Court of Justice and the Phenomenon of Judicial Hyperactivism’ (2002) 8(4) Israel Affairs 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. The article does not address the impact of religious law on other religious communities.

14. See eg Smith, Charles D, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents (9th edn, St Martins Press 2016)Google Scholar.

15. United Nations General Assembly, ‘Future Government of Palestine’, UNGA Res 181(II) (29 November 1947), UN Doc A/RES/181(II).

16. Basic Law: The Knesset, 12 Laws of the State of Israel 85 (English translation).

17. For the texts and information on the first eleven Basic Laws, see Israel's Knesset website: The Knesset, ‘The Existing Basic Laws: Summary’ (Knesset, 2003) <www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod2.htm> accessed 18 May 2019.

18. Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, Sefer Hachukkim No 1387, 114 (12 March 1992), replaced by Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, Sefer Hachukkim No 1454, 90 (10 March 1994); Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, Sefer Hachukkim No 1391, 150 (25 March 1992). For translations of the main Basic Laws, see: The Knesset, ‘The Existing Basic Laws: Full Texts’ (Knesset, 2005) <www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod1.htm> accessed 18 May 2019.

19. See Barak-Erez, Daphne, ‘Israeli Administrative Law at the Crossroads: Between the English Model and the American Model’ (2007) 40 Israel Law Review 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar (addressing the transformations and the challenges that may lead to further distancing).

20. For the original order see Palestine Order in Council 1922 (10 August 1922), in Drayton, Robert Harry (ed), The Laws of Palestine: In Force on the 31st Day of December 1933, vol 3 (rev edn, Waterlow & Sons 1934) 2569Google Scholar (domestic law, which was a mix of Ottoman law and British colonial laws, was to be ‘exercised in conformity with the substance of the common law, and the doctrines of equity in force in England, and with the powers vested in and according to the procedure and practice observed by or before Courts of Justice and Justices of the Peace in England’), repealed by the Foundations of Law Act, 5740–1980, 34 Laws of the State of Israel 181 (English translation). On this process, see Friedmann (n 10) 357–77; Shachar, Yoram, ‘History and Sources of Israeli Law’ in Shapira, Amos and DeWitt-Arar, Keren C (eds), Introduction to the Law of Israel (Kluwer Law International 1995) 1, 6–7Google Scholar.

21. See HCJ 1/49 Bejerano v Minister of Police, 2 IsrSC 80 (SCt) (English translation at Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\49\010\000\x03&fileName=49000010.X03&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019) (administrative action affecting human rights could not rely on a general authorization to act; explicit statutory authorization that referred to the specific action was required).

22. For this development, see FH 16/61 Registrar of Companies v Kardosh (SCt), 16 IsrSC 1151 (English translation in 4 IsrSJ 7) (no absolute discretion, even when statute granted seemingly unfettered discretion); for the second, see eg the series of applications for judicial review regarding blanket exemption from military service to ultra-orthodox Jewish men. By 1986, both justiciability (on national security grounds) and standing were gradually abandoned by the Court; HCJ 40/70 Becker v Minister of Defence, 24(1) IsrSC 238 (SCt); HCJ 448/81 Ressler v Minister of Defence, 36(1) IsrSC 81 (SCt); FH 2/82 Ressler v Minister of Defence, 36(1) IsrSC 708 (SCt); HCJ 910/86 Ressler v Minister of Defence (SCt), 42(2) IsrSc 441 (SCt) (English translation at 10 IsrSJ 1; Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\86\100\009\Z01&fileName=86009100_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019).

23. See eg HCJ 73/53 Kol Ha'am v Minister of the Interior, 7 IsrSC 871 (SCt) (English translation at 1 IsrSJ 90; Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\53\730\000\Z01&fileName=53000730_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019) (on freedom of the press); HCJ 153/83, Levi v Southern District Police Commander, 38(2) IsrSC 393 (SCt) (English translation at Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\83\530\001\Z01&fileName=83001530_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019) (on freedom of speech and assembly); HCJ 153/87 Shakdiel v Minister of Religious Affairs, 42(2) IsrSC 221 (SCt) (English translation at Supreme Court Website, <https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=EnglishVerdicts\87\530\001\Z01&fileName=87001530_Z01.txt&type=4> accessed 18 May 2019) (on freedom of religion).

24. See eg Daphne Barak-Erez, ‘Broadening the Scope of Judicial Review in Israel: Between Activism and Restraint’ (2009) 3 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 118, 119, 121.

25. For examples of recent work, see Cohen-Eliyah, Moshe and Porat, Iddo, ‘The Administrative Origins of Constitutional Rights and Global Constitutionalism’ in Jackson, Vicki C and Tushnet, Mark (eds), Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges (CUP 2017) 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roznai, Yaniv, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (OUP 2017)Google Scholar; Weill, Rivka, ‘Secession and the Prevalence of Both Militant Democracy and Eternity Clauses Worldwide’ (2018) 40 Cardozo Law Review 905Google Scholar.

26. On legal transplants, see eg Barak-Erez, Daphne, ‘The Institutional Aspects of Comparative Law’ (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 477Google Scholar; Cohn, Margit, ‘Legal Transplant Chronicles: The Evolution of Unreasonableness and Proportionality Review of the Administration in the United Kingdom’ (2010) 58 American Journal of Comparative Law 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar (the former mentions Israel among other systems, while the latter focuses on the UK, following a conceptual discussion). For an expansive collection on human dignity, see Düwell, Marcus and others (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (CUP 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an overview of human dignity under law, see eg Cohn, Margit and Grimm, Dieter, ‘Human Dignity as a Constitutional Doctrine’ in Tushnet, Mark, Fleiner, Thomas, and Saunders, Cheryl (eds), Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law (Routledge 2013) 193Google Scholar. On proportionality, see eg Cohen-Eliya, Moshe and Porat, Iddo, Proportionality and Constitutional Culture (CUP 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. See eg Roznai, Yaniv, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments – The Migration and Success of a Constitutional Idea’ (2013) 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 657CrossRefGoogle Scholar (a study of dozens of constitutions, but without a quantitative element); Shulztiner, Doron and Carmi, Guy E, ‘Human Dignity in National Constitutions: Functions, Promises and Dangers’ (2014) 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 461CrossRefGoogle Scholar (a study of 141 constitutions); Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments (n 25) (more than 200 constitutions mentioned).

28. See eg Cohen-Eliya, Moshe and Stopler, Gila, ‘Probability Thresholds as Deontological Constraints in Global Constitutionalism’ (2010) 49 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 75Google Scholar; Weill, Rivka, ‘The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism Notwithstanding: On Judicial Review and Constitution-Making’ (2014) 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weill, Rivka, ‘Juxtaposing Constitution-Making and Constitutional Infringement Mechanisms in Israel and Canada: On the Interplay between Common Law Override and Sunset Override’ (2016) 49 Israel Law Review 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. See eg Barak, Aharon, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments’ (2011) 44 Israel Law Review 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar (comparing seven systems); Roznai, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments – The Migration and Success of a Constitutional Idea’ (n 27); Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments (n 25).

30. See eg Reichman, Amnon, ‘The Passionate Expression of Hate: Constitutional Protections, Emotional Harm and Comparative Law’ (2007) 31 Fordham International Law Journal 76Google Scholar; Bendor, Ariel L and Sachs, Michael, ‘The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity in Germany and Israel’ (2011) 44 Israel Law Review 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohn and Grimm (n 26).

31. See eg Cohen-Eliya, Moshe and Porat, Iddo, ‘Proportionality and the Culture of Justification’ (2011) 59 American Journal of Comparative Law 463CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen-Eliya and Porat, Proportionality and Constitutional Culture (n 26).

32. See eg Stopler, Gila, ‘Rights in Immigrants: The Veil as a Test Case’ (2010) 43 Israel Law Review 183CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stopler, Gila, ‘The Challenge of Strong Religion in the Liberal State’ (2014) 32 Boston University International Law Journal 411Google Scholar; Stopler, Gila, ‘The Right to an Exclusively Religious Education – The Ultra-Orthodox Community in Israel in Comparative Perspective’ (2014) 42 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 743Google Scholar; Yaniv Roznai, ‘Negotiating the Eternal: The Paradox of Entrenching Secularism in Constitutions’ [2017] Michigan State Law Review 253.

33. See eg Barak-Erez, Daphne, ‘Terrorism and Profiling: Shifting the Focus from Criteria to Effects’ (2007) 29 Cardozo Law Review 1Google Scholar; Barak-Erez, Daphne and Kothari, Jayna, ‘When Sexual Harassment Goes East: Feminism, Legal Transplantation, and Social Change’ (2011) 47 Stanford Journal of International Law 175Google Scholar.

34. See eg Barak-Erez, Daphne, ‘Terrorism Law between the Executive and Legislative Models’ (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 877CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barak-Erez, Daphne and Waxman, Matthew C, ‘Secret Evidence and the Due Process of Terrorist Detentions’ (2009) 48 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 3Google Scholar; Barak-Erez, Daphne and Scharia, David, ‘Freedom of Speech, Support for Terrorism, and the Challenge of Global Constitutional Law’ (2011) 2 Harvard National Security Journal 1Google Scholar.

35. See eg Rivka Weill, ‘Constitutional Transitions: The Role of Lameducks and Caretakers’ [2011] Utah Law Review 1087; Weill, Rivka, ‘Election Integrity: The Constitutionality of Transitioning to Electronic Voting in Comparative Terms’ in Prins, Corien and others (eds), Digital Democracy in a Globalized World (Edward Elgar 2017) 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Cohn, Margit, ‘Non-Statutory Executive Powers: Assessing Global Constitutionalism in a Structural-Institutional Context’ (2015) 64 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohn, Margit, ‘Non-Statutory Executive Powers in France: A Comparison between Two Regimes’ in Albarian, Alexis and Morétau, Olivier (eds), Le Droit Comparé et… [Comparative Law and…] (Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille 2016) 51Google Scholar.

37. See eg Cohn, Margit, ‘Pure or Mixed? The Evolution of Three Grounds of Judicial Review of the Administration in British and Israeli Administrative Law’ (2011) 6 Journal of Comparative Law 86Google Scholar; Cohn, Margit, ‘Form, Formula and Constitutional Ethos: The Political Question/Justiciability Doctrine in Three Common Law Systems’ (2011) 59 American Journal of Comparative Law 675CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Asimow, Michael and Dotan, Yoav, ‘Hired Guns and Ministers of Justice: The Role of Government Attorneys in the United States and Israel’ (2016) 49 Israel Law Review 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Asimow, Michael and Dotan, Yoav, ‘Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action: The Conflicting US and Israeli Approaches’ (2016) 64 American Journal of Comparative Law 521CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. See eg Asimow and Dotan, ‘Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action’, ibid; Barak-Erez and Waxman (n 34).

39. See Part III of this article.

40. Shachar, Yoram, Harris, Ron, and Gross, Miron, ‘Citation Practices of the Supreme Court: Quantitative Analysis’ (1996) 27 Mishpatim [Hebrew University Law Review] 119Google Scholar; Shachar, Yoram, ‘The Citation Space of the Supreme Court, 1950–2004’ (2008) 50 Hapraklit 29Google Scholar; Navot, Suzie, ‘Israel: Creating a Constitution – The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court (1994–2010)’ in Groppi, Tania and Ponthoreau, Marie-Claire (eds), The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges (Hart 2013) 129Google Scholar. See generally Groppi, Tania and Ponthoreau, Marie-Claire (eds), The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges (Hart 2013)Google Scholar (containing fifteen country analyses and a general conclusion).

41. Barak-Erez, Daphne, ‘Judicial Conversations and Comparative Law: The Case of Non-Hegemonic Countries’ (2013) 47 Tulsa Law Review 405Google Scholar (including a quantitative analysis of judicial citations of Aharon Barak worldwide); Porat, Iddo, ‘The Use of Foreign Law in Israeli Constitutional Adjudication’ in Sapir, Gideon, Barak-Erez, Daphne, and Barak, Aharon (eds), Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making (Hart 2013) 151Google Scholar.

42. Shachar, Harris, and Gross (n 40) 152. Reliance on sources from civil law systems and international law was found to be consistently low, ranging from 1.3% (1948 and 1974) to 0% (6 years during this period of 47 years) for civil law and 0.7% (1972) to 0% (22 years) for international law.

43. Shachar, ‘The Citation Space of the Supreme Court, 1950–2004’ (n 40) 45–51.

44. ibid 60

45. ibid 65–66.

46. Navot (n 40) 139–41.

47. ibid 142, 145. Other Asian and Oceanian systems were New Zealand (0.75%), Singapore (0.5%), and Hong Kong (0.38%).

48. Searched through Nevo, Israel's main legal database <www.nevo.co.il> accessed 18 May 2019, and supplemented with manual searches of faculty websites of all Israeli law schools (four university faculties and ten colleges). A loose classification of ‘comparative’ was adopted: articles that referred to practices in several countries were all included, even when the analysis of foreign systems was marginal to the main topic of the study, or merely anecdotal. These searches identified 44 publications in English and 15 in Hebrew. This data should not be considered conclusive.

49. In the second and third places, 14 include analyses of Canadian law, and 12 refer to the UK.

50. Five of the 44 publications in English do not include a study of Israel.

51. South Korea is studied four times; Malaysia, Japan, and the Philippines are each studied once.

52. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (n 18); Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (n 18).

53. Porat (n 41).

54. Navot (n 40) 143.

55. For a global study of this pattern see eg Overbeek, Henk W (ed), Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy: The Rise of Transnational Neo-Liberalism in the 1980s (Routledge 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an analysis of this pattern in Israel, see eg Krampf, Arie, The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism: The State, Continuity and Change (Routledge 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. United Nations Data, ‘India’ (United Nations Statistics Division) <http://data.un.org/en/iso/in.html> accessed 18 May 2019.

57. For example, Israel joined the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) in 1954 but was excluded from the AFC in 1974. Israeli teams have participated in European club competitions since 1991, and its football association became a full member of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in 1994. See Richard Williams, ‘Why does Israel's Football Team Play in Europe?’ (Sky News Online, 18 May 2015) <https://news.sky.com/story/why-does-israels-football-team-play-in-europe-10359083> accessed 18 May 2019. Israel joined the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) in 1957 (see EBU, ‘Members’ (European Broadcasting Union) <https://ebu.ch/about/members> accessed 18 May 2019) and is a consistent participant in the Eurovision Song Contest. Since 2000, Israel operates under an association agreement with the EU, replacing a cooperation agreement from 1975 (see Euro-Mediterranean Agreement [2000] OJ L147/3 <https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/eu_israel/political_relations/agreements/index_en.htm> accessed 18 May 2019).

58. In addition to the working, albeit cold, peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, signed in 1994, several Gulf states have (re)opened political and commercial links with Israel, notably Qatar (including the establishment of trade relations in 1996 and the participation of Israeli gymnasts in the 2018 World Artistic Gymnastics Championship, albeit not under the Israeli flag), Abu Dhabi (full participation of Israeli athletes in the Judo Grand Slam in 2018), and, to a certain extent, Saudi Arabia (mostly covert, but for example reports on arms and technology deals between the countries appear in the press, and the usual ban on flights from Israel over Saudi territories was lifted in 2018 for Air India's flights between Mumbai and Tel Aviv). See eg Itamar Katzir, ‘Israel's Anthem Plays in Abu Dhabi for First Time as Judoka Wins Gold’ Haaretz (Tel Aviv, 28 October 2018) <www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-anthem-plays-in-abu-dhabi-for-first-time-as-judoka-wins-gold-1.6600967> accessed 18 May 2019; Chaim Levinson, ‘Report: Israel Authorized NSO's Sale of Spyware to Saudi Arabia’ Haaretz (Tel Aviv, 9 December 2018) <www.haaretz.com/israel-news/report-israel-authorized-nso-s-sale-of-spyware-to-saudi-arabia-1.6725044> accessed 18 May 2019.

59. The literature refers to all aspects of life, from its early pre-independence history to the present, permeating politics, culture, religion, and the economy. Among others, see Azaryahu, Maoz, ‘The Golden Arches of McDonald's: On the “Americanization of Israel”’ (2000) 5(1) Israel Studies 41Google Scholar; Rebhun, Uzi and Waxman, Chaim I, ‘The “Americanization” of Israel: A Demographic, Cultural and Political Evaluation’ (2000) 5(1) Israel Studies 65Google Scholar. See also eg Segev, Tom, Elvis in Jerusalem: Post-Zionism and the Americanization of Israel (Watzman, Haim tr, Metropolitan Books 2002)Google Scholar. Another example is a recent report in 2015 that focuses on the introduction of ‘Black Friday’ in Israel, even though ‘there's no Christmas for which Israelis need to be buying presents and no day-after-Thanksgiving holiday to spend hour-after-hour filling shopping carts’. This is considered to be one aspect of the rise of consumerism in Israel, which is itself viewed as ‘an American phenomenon’, viewed as the element that fuses the extremely riven nature of Israeli society. See David Rosenberg, ‘Shopping: The True Glue that Holds Israel Together’ Haaretz (Tel Aviv, 5 December 2015) <www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.689624> accessed 18 May 2019.

60. From the author's own sources. For the time being, the ranking list is currently restricted to staff members.

61. The best-known rankings originate in the US, such as the Washington and Lee ranking, the US News and World Report, and more recently, Google Scholar, leading to ‘meta rankings’ collating the lists. In some cases, rankings were adopted by government agencies as part of their evaluation of academic institutions, as in the case, formerly, of Australia. Other evaluation processes have led to the generation of rankings, such as in the case of the UK. For general overviews, see ‘Law Journals Ranking Worldwide’, World Encyclopedia of Law (2013) <https://lawin.org/law-journals-ranking-worldwide> accessed 26 March 2019 (focusing on ‘Ranking in Australia’ and ‘Washington and Lee Ranking’). For the ‘meta-ranking’ exercise of US law reviews, see Bryce Clayton Newell, ‘2016 Meta-Ranking of Flagship US Law Reviews’ (PrawfsBlawg, 4 April 2016) <https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/04/2016-meta-ranking-of-flagship-us-law-reviews.html> accessed 18 May 2019. For a post-2001 British analysis, see Campbell, Kevin, Goodacre, Alan, and Little, Gavin, ‘Ranking of United Kingdom Law Journals: An Analysis of the Research Assessment Exercise 2001 Submissions and Results’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. See eg Perry, Ronen, ‘The Relative Value of American Law Reviews: A Critical Appraisal of Ranking Methods’ (2006) 11(1) Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 1Google Scholar; Perry, Ronen, ‘The Relative Value of American Law Reviews: Refinement and Implementation’ (2006) 39 Connecticut Law Review 1Google Scholar. See also, in the context of Australian law journals, Professor Bowrey's report submitted to the Council of Australian Law Deans: Kathy Bowrey, ‘A Report into Methodologies Underpinning Australian Law Journal Rankings’ (8 February 2016) UNSW Law Research Paper No 2016-30 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2734017> accessed 18 May 2019.

63. Brophy, Alfred L, ‘The Relationship Between Law Review Citations and Law School Rankings’ (2006) 39 Connecticut Law Review 43Google Scholar; Perry, Ronen, ‘Correlation versus Causality: Further Thoughts on the Law Review/Law School Liaison’ (2006) 39 Connecticut Law Review 77Google Scholar.

64. About 70% of the 146 journals ranked ‘A’ are located and edited in the US (this excludes journals that consider themselved ‘international’ and have a mixed editorial board). Seven of the journals published in Israel in Hebrew, out of twenty-five recognized, are likewise ranked A.

65. In a 2012 ranking list adopted by the Hebrew University Faculty of Law, no more than two of the thirty journals ranked ‘A’ (the highest rank) were not located in the US.

66. The others are the law schools at the National Taiwan University, the University of Hong Kong, Renmin University, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. This is in addition to exchanges with Australian universities. See Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law, ‘Student Exchange Programs’ (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, February 2019) <https://en.law.huji.ac.il/book/student-exchange-programs> accessed 18 May 2019.

67. Publications since 2007, in English, include inter alia Barak (n 29); Barak-Erez and Kothari (n 33); Cohen-Eliya and Porat, ‘Proportionality and the Culture of Justification’ (n 31); Peled, Roy and Rabin, Yoram, ‘The Constitutional Right to Information’ (2011) 42 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 357Google Scholar; Cohen-Eliya and Porat, Proportionality and Constitutional Culture (n 26); Roznai, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments – The Migration and Success of a Constitutional Idea’ (n 27); Stopler, ‘The Right to an Exclusively Religious Education’ (n 32); Shulztiner and Carmi (n 27); Anat Cabili and others, ‘Law and Emergencies: A Comparative Overview’ (The Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, January 2016) <http://minervaextremelaw.haifa.ac.il/images/Emergency_Laws_and_Regulations_-in_the_United_States-_19-_Jan2016.pdf> accessed 18 May 2019; Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments (n 25); Weinshall, Keren, Sommer, Udi, and Ritov, Ya'acov, ‘Ideological Influences on Governance and Regulation: The Comparative Case of Supreme Courts’ (2018) 12 Regulation & Governance 334CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A few studies in Hebrew exist as well.