There are three constitutional branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch, and they are the product of our constitution, our Basic Laws. They are of equal status, and the relationship between them is one of “checks and balances”. This system is designed to assure that each branch operates within the confines of its authority, for no branch may have unlimited powers. The purpose of checks and balances is not effective government; its purpose is to guarantee freedom.

In this system of powers, the task of the judicial branch is to adjudicate conflicts according to the laws. For that purpose, the judicial branch has to perform three principal functions. The first is concerned with determining the facts. From the entirety of the facts, one should determine those facts which are relevant to adjudicating the conflict. The second function is concerned with determining the law. The third function is concerned with applying the law to the facts, and drawing the appropriate judicial conclusion.

In 1982, Canada's written constitution acquired a bill of rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 emerged as the product of a prolonged debate as to the propriety and desirability of protecting, by judicial review, an array of constitutional norms as part of the “supreme law” of Canada. The richness of that debate precipitated a new constitutional model that enlisted not only the courts, but the legislature and executive as well, in the project of rights-protection.

The extent to which the Roman government which had conquered the Land of Israel (Palaestina) as well as large areas outside of it (collectively termed the Roman Empire) permitted Jewish courts to rule in matters regarding Jews is a question which has attracted relatively little attention. In his fundamental book Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain the renowned scholar Jean Juster sums up the situation of the Jewish judiciary as such: “After the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews continued to bring their cases not only before Jewish judges (whom it was possible to define as arbiters) but even before actual Jewish courts authorized to judge according to Jewish law and granted authority to do so by the Romans. The Jewish court received the status of a regular court the moment one of the Jewish sides submitted a claim to it, thereby effectively preventing the submission of the case to a rival non-Jewish court. The Jewish court thus received the authority to summon the defendant, to force him to appear, and to ensure that its rulings would be enforced. Its rulings would be recognized by the Roman authorities as coming from legitimate judicial authority”.

In 1988, at the beginning of the Palestinian Intifada, a deportation case came before the Israeli Supreme Court (sitting as a High Court of Justice). The facts of the case presented no great difficulty, but the Court took the opportunity to declare the law governing the previously uncertain residence status of East Jerusalem Palestinians. The judgment of the Court was given by Barak J. In a remarkable passage, the learned judge not only examined the legislatively defined conditions for the loss of permanent residence, but went on to discuss the subsistence and expiry of this status in more fundamental terms, focusing on the “reality” of the licence-holder's presence in Israel. The case thus introduced a second, judge-made test for the loss of permanent residence, which appears to exist in uneasy parallel with the test provided by the legislature. This essay questions the propriety and the quality of Barak J.'s innovation, and examines some of its consequences.

On 15 February 1999, the Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter addressed to the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions in Israel concerning “recent meetings held by diplomatic representatives in the Orient House in Jerusalem”. This letter noted that under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements, Jerusalem is one of the final status negotiations issues and that as the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council does not cover Jerusalem, the Council cannot locate its offices in the City. The letter also took the position that holding meetings at the Orient House was “a clear and serious violation” of the agreements. The Heads of the Diplomatic Missions were therefore urged not to encourage or participate in “any such violation” — nor to allow their staff and visitors to do so.

Nafisi v. Nafisi (1996) 50(iii) P.D. 573

The parties were married in 1944 in Persia (Iran), where they were domiciled. In 1979 the husband visited Israel, and during his stay he bought a shop in Tel-Aviv, which he registered in his name. In 1983 the couple and their five children immigrated to Israel. They lived in an apartment registered in both their names. Shortly after their arrival in the country, the husband opened two bank accounts in his name and deposited amounts totalling $320,000, which he had brought with him from Persia. In 1987 the couple's marriage broke down. Despite the rift, they both continued to live in the family home. The wife petitioned the court for a declaratory judgment stating that the shop and the money deposited in the bank accounts were jointly owned by both spouses. The District Court ruled in her favour. The Supreme Court accepted the husband's appeal and held that the wife had failed to prove her right to community property. The wife requested a further hearing in the Supreme Court on the matter, and in the further hearing, the Court ruled in her favour, by a majority decision.