Israeli NGO Yesh Din called on the Attorney-General‘s Office to clarify if reasonableness standard law restrictions apply to the disputed territories in a letter on Sunday, warning that it would petition the High Court of Justice.
Yesh Din argued that only the military had the authority to set rules and regulations in the West Bank. If the law is extended to the disputed territories, it will be subject to international law and international human rights regimes, as military authorities are.
“The Knesset is the elected institution of the citizens of Israel and has no authority to enact legislation that changes the law in occupied territory,” wrote Yesh Din.
The NGO said that the Attorney-General needed to establish her opinion on if the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary that passed last Monday would apply to administrative decisions beyond Israel proper.
High Court petitions
The threat by Yesh Din to pursue legal action against the judicial reform reasonableness law comes a week after a series of High Court petitions were filed last Monday and Tuesday.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a vote on the reasonableness bill at the assembly hall of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem on July 24, 2023. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)The High Court has still not set a date for the hearing on the petitions in September after the court recess. The High Court has never struck down a Basic Law amendment, and it is contested if it has the power to do so — raising concerns of a brewing constitutional crisis.
Far beyond the norm
Petitioners have argued that without a reasonableness standard, a common law doctrine that allowed judicial review of government administrative decisions deemed far beyond the norm, there would be a loss of balance between powers and the rule of law.
The law restricted the doctrine from being applied to the government, the prime minister, and ministers; only relevant to non-elected civil servants. Consequently, critics have claimed that politicians have a free hand to act without explanation or accountability for their reasoning, potentially allowing them to engage in corruption or appoint civil servants how they please.
In the petitions, NGOs contended that the Knesset abused its constitutional authority by passing the law, which goes against the fabric of constitutional norms. They argued that the law was created to extract immediate political benefits, but Basic Laws are supposed to establish powers, responsibilities, and state structures.
The petitioners had also argued that there were procedural problems with the bill, which had been advanced as a committee bill rather than a private bill. Committee bills are usually reserved for technical matters and do not need to pass a preliminary vote and 45-day waiting period.
Comments are closed.