Ariel L. Bendor

Bio: Ariel L. Bendor is an academic researcher from Bar-Ilan University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Constitution & Comparative law. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 19 publications receiving 81 citations. Previous affiliations of Ariel L. Bendor include University of Tulsa & American University.

The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity in Germany and Israel

Abstract: This article applies comparative law tools to portray eight significant aspects of the constitutional right to human dignity in Germany and Israel. The elements considered are: the constitutional status of human dignity; the nature of the right; its effect on other constitutional rights; its scope and definition; waiver of human dignity; human dignity after death; negative and positive aspects of the right; and the right to asylum. The textual foundations of the respective constitutional guarantees are as different as human dignity's core meaning. In Germany, such guarantees are held to be absolute, immune to restriction, and therefore quite narrow in scope. In Israel, the scope of the right is much broader, but it is subject to limitations when placed against the public interest. Still, based on the findings of our comprehensive comparison, similar dynamics can be identified in Germany and Israel The constitutional coverage of both absolute and relative principles is broad, as are the constitutional lacunas, which are those dimensions of constitutional law neglected by the written constitution.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Meets the American Constitution: Towards a Supreme Law of the World

Abstract: A common contention among proponents of American ratification of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is that the ratification is necessary in order to protect children from paternal and governmental oppression The opponents of ratification typically contend that it will lead toward a breach of US sovereignty while harming both family values and interests of children The authors argue that the impact of CRC ratification upon American law will probably be much less radical than both antagonists and protagonists presume The moderate and temperate approach of the Convention replicates the similar ambiguity and ambivalence that characterize the domain of children rights under current American law The fact that a few of the CRC articles stand contrary to American laws should not prevent its ratification by the United States Yet, the Article maintain that even though the CRC is not anticipated to have a significant effect on internal American law, the American refraining from ratification of the Convention may carry undesirable consequences concerning the rights of children in the global context

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child meets the American Constitution: Towards a supreme law of the world

Abstract: A common contention among proponents of American ratification of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is that the ratification is necessary in order to protect children from paternal and governmental oppression. The opponents of ratification typically contend that it will lead toward a breach of US sovereignty while harming both family values and interests of children. The authors argue that the impact of CRC ratification upon American law will probably be much less radical than both antagonists and protagonists presume. The moderate and temperate approach of the Convention replicates the similar ambiguity and ambivalence that characterize the domain of children rights under current American law. The fact that a few of the CRC articles stand contrary to American laws should not prevent its ratification by the United States. Yet, the Article maintain that even though the CRC is not anticipated to have a significant effect on internal American law, the American refraining from ratification of the Convention may carry undesirable consequences concerning the rights of children in the global context.

How proportional is proportionality

Abstract: Proportionality is a set of rules determining the conditions for a limitation of constitutionally protected rights. It is the mainstay of the protection of constitutional human rights in many Western democracies and worldwide. Aharon Barak’s Proportionality is probably the most important and comprehensive book written on the subject to date. The essay presents several key arguments concerning the weaknesses of proportionality in the model proposed and developed by Barak, and shows how Barak’s rejection of various arguments against proportionality is not fully convincing. The essay suggests that the benefits of Barak’s structuring of proportionality are more modest than Barak maintains; points out the weaknesses of Barak’s approach in regard to the interpretation of constitutional rights, which entails a trivialization of the rights and has problematic consequences for the interpretation and application of proportionality as well as undesirable symbolic connotations; and asserts that Barak’s approach increases the problem of incommensurability, which is inherent in the doctrine of proportionality. The essay claims that despite the importance of the book it does not provide a satisfactory answer to many difficult and complex problems regarding proportionality.

Human Dignity: The Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right

Abstract: Human dignity is now a central feature of many modern constitutions and international documents. As a constitutional value, human dignity involves a person's free will, autonomy, and ability to write a life story within the framework of society. As a constitutional right, it gives full expression to the value of human dignity, subject to the specific demands of constitutional architecture. This analytical study of human dignity as both a constitutional value and a constitutional right adopts a legal-interpretive perspective. It explores the sources of human dignity as a legal concept, its role in constitutional documents, its content, and its scope. The analysis is augmented by examples from comparative legal experience, including chapters devoted to the role of human dignity in American, Canadian, German, South African, and Israeli constitutional law.

From convention to classroom : the long road to human rights education : measuring States' compliance with international law obligations mandating human rights education

Abstract: A core function of the United Nations over the past six decades has been the promotion and protection of human rights. In pursuit of this goal, the UN General Assembly has adopted numerous human rights treaties covering a vast array of rights. Because it has the highest number of ratifications, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), is often lauded as the most successful of all the human rights treaties. Although the breadth and depth of human rights treaties is impressive, the amount of research into their effectiveness is not. Very little scholarship has been undertaken to evaluate the extent to which human rights treaties are being complied with by countries that have ratified them and whether ratification of a human rights treaty has a positive impact on the human rights situation within a State Party’s jurisdiction. The research that has been undertaken has been largely quantitative and limited to studies of compliance with civil and political rights. This thesis builds on this limited scholarship by qualitatively analysing the ‘compliance’ levels of two States, Australia and the United States, with the norm in Article 29(1) of CROC relating to human rights education (HRE). Although the United States has not ratified CROC, it was selected as one of the case studies for this research in order to enable comparison to be made between HRE in a State that has ratified CROC, and a State that has not, thereby shedding light on whether ratification of a human rights treaty makes a difference. Various theories have been developed to explain States’ compliance, or lack of compliance, with international law. These range from rational actor theories that focus on States’ power and self-interest to normative theories that highlight the persuasive power of binding legal obligations. When applying these theories to the empirical data relating to Australia and the United States’ conduct surrounding Article 29(1) of CROC, this thesis found that none of the theories adequately explained the this conduct. Aspects of rational actor theories were useful in understanding Australia’s decision to ratify, and the United States’ decision not to ratify, CROC, while the normative theories that were more helpful in explaining domestic behaviours relating to HRE. However, no single theory entirely explained these two States’ practices. In particular, existing theories overemphasise the significance of international influences at the expense of domestic factors which were found to significantly impact on whether a State is likely to comply with an international norm. This thesis found that constitutional structures (federalism), and the presence or absence of a domestic bill of rights, were particularly significant when it came to giving effect to the norm in Article 29(1) of CROC.

Moderation of Religious Parties: Electoral Constraints, Ideological Commitments, and the Democratic Capacities of Religious Parties in Israel and Turkey

Abstract: Whether religious parties’ inclusion in electoral competition moderates or polarizes their positions remains an enigma as deductive accounts yield contradictory results. This analysis questions the...

Three Strikes and You're Out

Abstract: A review essay of Mark Skousen's The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. The bottom line is this: If you want Skousen's view of the history of economics, skip The Big Three and read The Making of Modern Economics.

Core Socio-Economic Rights and the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract: Core Socio-Economic Rights and the European Court of Human Rights deals with socio-economic rights in the context of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The book connects the ECtHR's socio-economic case law to an understanding of the Court's responsibility to recognize the limitations of supranational rights adjudication while protecting the most needy. By exploring the idea of core rights protection in constitutional and international law, a new perspective is developed that offers suggestions for improving the ECtHR's reasoning in socio-economic cases as well as contributing to the debate on indivisible rights adjudication in an age of 'rights inflation' and proportionality review. Core Socio-Economic Rights and the European Court of Human Rights will interest scholars and practitioners dealing with fundamental rights and especially those interested in judicial reasoning, socio-economic and supranational rights protection.