Suchergebnisse

Daphne Barak reveals why Rick Gates pled guilty in the Mueller probe and the lasting repercussions of this ordeal. Rick Gates joined the Trump campaign with Paul Manafort, with whom he had worked for some time. In fact, Gates' first career job was as an intern for Manafort's firm. So, when the Mueller investigation charged Paul Manafort, they also investigated Gates and eventually Gates took a plea deal. In TO PLEA OR NOT TO PLEA, Daphne Barak tells the story of Gates' very positive experience as deputy campaign manager for the Trump campaign and deputy Chairman of the Donald Trump inaugural Committee, followed by the ordeal that Gates has been put through by the Mueller investigation -- and why he felt he had to plead guilty to protect himself and his family

Imprisonment calls into question the institutionalized violence of the state and its organs. It touches on the very core of the meaning of state sovereignty and concerns one of the most disempowered groups of society: indicted criminals. Therefore, privatization of prisons signals the willingness to apply privatization policies almost with no limitations. Private prisons have become a known phenomenon in many countries. After the debate on this issue seemed to lose its pragmatic value—in contrast to its importance on the theoretical level—privatization of prisons reemerged as an issue of legal debate due to the Israeli Supreme Court decision that declared a law authorizing the establishment of a private prison unconstitutional.The following analysis evaluates this decision using it as a microcosm for studying the role of law in regulating privatization policies. The Article starts by studying the full range of privatization policies, in order to offer an analysis that would be relevant also to other cases along the privatization spectrum. It then challenges the traditional premise of public law that the move to privatization is merely a matter of policy and not of law. More concretely, the Article offers an analysis based upon distinguishing among three distinct spheres of discussion: the boundaries of privatization, the privatization process, and the regulation of privatized actions. This model of analysis is then applied to the case-study of prison privatization as decided by the Israeli Supreme Court.

The article discusses the significance of symbols within constitutional law by analyzing the role of laws introducing traditional national symbols into two legal systems characterized by a mixture of secular and traditional traits—India and Israel. Specifically, it focuses on the legal prohibitions on cattle slaughter in India and on pig growing and pork trading in Israel, animals considered "key symbols" in their respective cultures. Changes in the social and political context emerged as crucial for the legal regulation of these symbols as well as for its durability. Despite the similarities in their starting points, the Indian and the Israeli systems have ultimately taken divergent courses, reflecting differences in their respective contexts and underlying tensions. Whereas Indian cattle slaughter prohibitions are expanding with the constitutional backing of the Indian Supreme Court, pig-related prohibitions in Israel are declining, again with the constitutional backing of the Israeli Supreme Court. The article explains this difference by placing these symbols in a wider social context. Cattle slaughter in India has long been a consistent source of tension with the Muslim community. The basic strain that led to the original legislation, then, remains just as powerful, encouraging the preservation and expansion of laws forbidding cattle slaughter. By contrast, pig prohibitions in Jewish culture developed in the context of persecutions by Greco-Roman rulers and later on in Christian Europe. The "other" against whom this prohibition developed, however, is no longer part of public life in Israel. In addition, the Muslim community in Israel is equally averse to pigs. As time passed, then, the importance of pig prohibitions for Israeli secular Jews within the context of their national identity has declined, and they are currently perceived as a source of tension between secular and religious Jews. Many secular Israelis indeed view the pressure for pig-related legal prohibitions more as a symbol of religious coercion than as a national symbol of identification.

RésuméLes tribunaux jouent parfois le rôle d'historien et rapportent le récit d'affaires ayant une importance historique. Ils sont pleinement conscients de ce rôle "historique" lorsqu'ils sont appelés à prendre des décisions se rapportant à des faits historiques dans un litige relevant de leur compétence. Cet article est, par comparaison, centré sur l'écriture involontaire de l'histoire par les tribunaux lorsqu'ils rapportent un événement passé comme un fait historique incontestable, généralement à travers la doctrine de la connaissance judiciaire, en ignorant le fait que cette version puisse être contestée. Pour souligner ces propos, cet article se concentre sur les décisions prises par la Cour Suprême israélienne en particulier pendant la formation de l'Etat. Il affirme que le récit historique des juges, qui généralement font partie de l'élite d'une société, représente la version reconnue de la mémoire collective. Il s'efforce, ensuite, de mettre en lumière l'importance de ce récit dans la légitimité institutionnelle des tribunaux.

Exploring Social Rights looks into the theoretical and practical implications of social rights. The book is organised in five parts. Part I considers theoretical aspects of social rights, and looks into their place within political and legal theory and within the human rights tradition; Part II looks at the status of social rights in international law, with reference to the challenge of globalisation and to the significance of specific regional regulation (such as the European System); Part III includes discussions of various legal systems which are of special interest in this area (Canada, So