Releasing the Government from Acting Reasonably; or, the Government Says Goodbye to Reasonableness

IF 0.7 Q2 Social Sciences
Mordechai Kremnitzer
{"title":"Releasing the Government from Acting Reasonably; or, the Government Says Goodbye to Reasonableness","authors":"Mordechai Kremnitzer","doi":"10.1017/s0021223723000146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Knesset has recently amended Basic Law: The Judiciary to eliminate the ability of the courts to issue an injunction against the government or any of its ministers based on the reasonableness of their decisions. This article examines this amendment from various angles. The first section posits the amendment as part of a larger plan of the coalition to eliminate judicial review and provide the government with unlimited power. The second section emphasises that the amendment was legislated by the Knesset for itself, raising concern over a conflict of interest. This is followed by a brief explanation of the reasonableness standard in Israeli law, and an assessment of the duty to act reasonably, which stems from the democratic principle of the rule of law. The next two sections assess the many risks that the amendment creates, such as the types of decision that could be made without adhering to a standard of reasonableness, and the trimming of the power of the Attorney General as a legal ‘gatekeeper’. Special emphasis is given to the dangers that the amendment holds for the quality and diversity of the civil service. Finally, the article discusses the multiple reasons why the government should not be immune from a reasonableness check and tackles the arguments against the use of the standard of reasonableness by the courts. This multifaceted analysis leads to the conclusion that the elimination of the reasonableness standard undermines basic features of democracy and fractures the social contract between the citizens and the government. Therefore, it should not be immune from judicial review.","PeriodicalId":44911,"journal":{"name":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223723000146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The Knesset has recently amended Basic Law: The Judiciary to eliminate the ability of the courts to issue an injunction against the government or any of its ministers based on the reasonableness of their decisions. This article examines this amendment from various angles. The first section posits the amendment as part of a larger plan of the coalition to eliminate judicial review and provide the government with unlimited power. The second section emphasises that the amendment was legislated by the Knesset for itself, raising concern over a conflict of interest. This is followed by a brief explanation of the reasonableness standard in Israeli law, and an assessment of the duty to act reasonably, which stems from the democratic principle of the rule of law. The next two sections assess the many risks that the amendment creates, such as the types of decision that could be made without adhering to a standard of reasonableness, and the trimming of the power of the Attorney General as a legal ‘gatekeeper’. Special emphasis is given to the dangers that the amendment holds for the quality and diversity of the civil service. Finally, the article discusses the multiple reasons why the government should not be immune from a reasonableness check and tackles the arguments against the use of the standard of reasonableness by the courts. This multifaceted analysis leads to the conclusion that the elimination of the reasonableness standard undermines basic features of democracy and fractures the social contract between the citizens and the government. Therefore, it should not be immune from judicial review.
使政府免于采取合理行动;或者说,政府告别了理性
以色列议会最近修改了《基本法:司法》,以消除法院根据其决定的合理性对政府或其任何部长发布禁令的能力。本文从多个角度考察了这一修正。第一部分将修正案作为联合政府更大计划的一部分,该计划旨在消除司法审查并赋予政府无限权力。第二部分强调,修正案是以色列议会为自己制定的,这引起了对利益冲突的关注。接着是对以色列法律中的合理性标准的简要解释,以及对源于法治民主原则的合理行事义务的评估。接下来的两节评估了修正案所带来的诸多风险,比如在不遵守合理标准的情况下可能做出的决定类型,以及削减司法部长作为法律“看门人”的权力。特别强调了该修正案对公务员制度的质量和多样性所构成的危险。最后,本文讨论了政府不应免于合理性审查的多重原因,并对反对法院使用合理性标准的争论进行了处理。这种多方面的分析可以得出结论:合理性标准的取消破坏了民主的基本特征,破坏了公民与政府之间的社会契约。因此,它不应免于司法审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信