Judicial Review of Legislation in New Zealand: Summary of Position Paper #12

This paper examines whether indeed, as claimed by supporters of the pending regime changes, New Zealand law does not provide for judicial review on legislation. We conclude that this claim is mistaken and misleading for the following reasons:

1.     Courts in New Zealand have the authority to strike down legislation that infringes upon the right to vote and the right to be elected, unless that legislation is enacted by a super-majority, namely the votes of three quarters of parliament members, or has been approved in a national referendum where a majority vote is required both generally and of the Maori minority specifically.

2.     New Zealand case law provides that courts have the authority to strike down legislation that severely undermines the independence of the judiciary or infringes upon fundamental human rights. These judicial decisions have a restraining effect on legislators.

3.     Additionally, courts are authorized to declare that legislation is incompatible with human rights law. When they do, the New Zealand parliament tends to amend the law.

Senior British Experts’ Response Concerning the Comparison of Israel & UK: Position Paper #13

As a part of their campaign, supporters of the regime change compare the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Israel, in a way that is mistaken and misleading. The following position paper, written and signed by some of the leading experts on UK public law, provides accurate information on the British legal system. 

Among the signatories of the position paper are former President of the UK Supreme Court (2012- 2017) Lord David Neuberger, former Minister of State for Justice (2013-2016) Lord Edward Faulks KC, senior barrister and member of the House of Lords Constitution Committee (2008- 2021) Lord David Pannick KC, and two professors from UCL, a leading university in Britain. 

The writers of the attached position paper clearly contradict the claims made by supporters of the regime change, and demonstrate the role of the House of Lords as an active second legislative body that initiates legislation and routinely supervises the actions of Parliament. Furthermore, recent proposals for reform in the UK have left unscathed the role of the House of Lords as a primary constitutional protector. 

The position paper examines and rejects the claim that since the United Kingdom’s courts affirm the legal doctrine of legislative supremacy of the Parliament, the judiciary cannot affect the design and execution of public policy. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides courts with two powers in this regard—to interpret legislation in a way that protects human rights, including by departing from the legislature’s intended meaning (section 3), and by issuing a declaration of incompatibility (section 4), which under the legal culture of the UK it is ultimately followed by parliamentary/governmental action that removes the incompatibility. The power to declare incompatibility is often mistakenly considered the only power the UK judiciary possesses; however, while this power has been employed by courts about 30 times, courts have read down statutes that violate human rights in nearly 60 cases. 

Beyond the Human Rights Act, the UK courts have exercised their historical role under the common law to provide a potent restraint on executive power. For example, the Supreme Court intervened in the processes of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Even following Brexit, the writers of the position paper stress, the UK parliament and nearly all its governments affirmed the crucial importance of observing its international legal commitments, including by remaining a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights and continuing to abide by the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. Membership of this system of human rights imposes further noteworthy constraints on legislative processes.

Britain

.pdf

הורידו את PDF • 570KB

Violation of Women’s Rights as a Result of the Proposed Regime Changes in Israel: Position Paper #11

The Israeli Law Professors’ Forum for Democracy, an ad hoc voluntary and politically independent group of experts on Israeli law and specifically Israeli public law, views with grave concern the apparent intention to abolish the independence of the judiciary in Israel, to subordinate it to the government and the partisan political considerations of the executive branch, to undermine the independent status of the Attorney-General and the legal advisors to government ministries, and to violate human rights.

In this position paper, and in view of such intention and its implications, we relate to the foreseeable violation of women's rights, as reflected in the government's composition and appointments, in the coalition agreements, in the legislative bills proposed by coalition members, and in the actions and declarations of the government and its members.

The conclusion of this position paper is that the totality of actions, commitments, and legislative changes initiated by the government and the coalition will amount to a mortal blow to the rights of all women in Israel, and to a regression in their situation in the gravest manner since the establishment of the state.

Position Paper No 11 Harm to Women's Rights

.pdf

הורידו את PDF • 688KB