scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Smadar Ben-Natan

Other affiliations: Tel Aviv University
Bio: Smadar Ben-Natan is an academic researcher from University of Washington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Human rights & Israeli law. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 7 publications receiving 28 citations. Previous affiliations of Smadar Ben-Natan include Tel Aviv University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper explored the cooptation of human rights discourse by looking into how Israeli military judges in the Occupied Palestinian Territories use human rights as professional capital, while avoiding criticism and sidestepping human rights challenge to state power.
Abstract: This article explores the cooptation of human rights discourse by looking into how Israeli military judges in the Occupied Palestinian Territories use human rights as professional capital. Previous research into human rights arguments legitimizing the Israeli occupation remained confined to a unitary image of the state. Here, I dissect the separate professional project of military judges. Optimizing a self-congratulatory argument, judges portray themselves as human rights heroes of Palestinians. But while independent judicial activism would criticize human rights violations by the state, military judges use human rights as synonymous with legal professionalism, while avoiding criticism and sidestepping human rights’ challenge to state power. Using a multimethod approach including analysis of judicial decisions, academic articles by military judges, and in-depth interviews, I argue that between 2000 and 2010, Israeli military judges were responding to a professional legitimacy crisis by what I call mimetic convergence. Relying on new institutionalism and postcolonial theory, mimetic convergence produces belonging and mobility for a professional subgroup that experiences alienation in the “colony” through convergence with the specific characteristics of the legal community of the “metropole.” Mimicking the state instead of criticizing it permits the two projects— promoting military judges professionally and legitimizing the state’s colonial occupation—to coalesce.

14 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the relationship between constitutional law and international law in the extraterritorial enforcement of human rights is explored by offering a typology of models: the American, European and Israeli models.
Abstract: Applying human rights beyond state borders is thorny. Which law governs the property rights of a Palestinian whose orchard lies across the Israeli border, or the cross-border shooting of a Mexican citizen by a United States border control agent? This article explores the relationship between constitutional law and international law in the extraterritorial enforcement of human rights by offering a typology of models: the American, European and Israeli models. These models are analysed comparatively, highlighting their chosen legal source of rights: the American model applies constitutional law, the European model uses international law, and Israel combines the two. The article argues that the choice between constitutional and international law is important as it affects the nature and scope of rights, and reflects the relationship between the state and the territory it controls or within which it acts. The dynamic formation process of the Israeli model demonstrates the multiple possible ways to combine these two sources of law and formulate the relationship between them. All three models share a ‘constitutional mindset’: the use of basic legal concepts and reasoning in legally grey zones. However, these transnational processes are not deterministic and could result in original concepts, contradictions and discrepancies, as well as serve different political visions.

10 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the duality of emergency powers and criminal law in old and new formations of empire is explored, set against the backdrop of the US "war on terror" against terrorism.
Abstract: This article explores the duality of emergency powers and criminal law in old and new formations of empire. Set against the backdrop of the US “war on terror,” I link discussions around current art...

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Tbeish v Attorney General, in light of the 1999 landmark Public Committee against Torture in Israel (pcati) case, which prohibited torture and ill-treatment of detainees, but acknowledged necessity as a possible criminal defence for interrogators, has been analyzed in this paper.
Abstract: This paper reviews the recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Tbeish v Attorney General, in light of the 1999 landmark Public Committee against Torture in Israel (pcati) case, which prohibited torture and ill-treatment of detainees, but acknowledged necessity as a possible criminal defence for interrogators. Tbeish is not framed as a break from the past, or even as a change in the law, but I argue that it provides a new authorization for torture and ill-treatment. The Court upheld internal guidelines of the Israeli Security Agency (isa) that establish a ‘necessity procedure’ for the application of ‘special interrogation means’. The Court’s specific construction of the guidelines circumvents the unambiguous prohibition in pcati on general rules setting criteria for using special interrogation means, by turning the process into a supposedly ad hoc decision on each individual case without preexisting rules. Nevertheless, this paper argues, the decision approves a system of prior authorization for the use of violent means of interrogations. Creating a framework for an organizational decision, the guidelines relieve interrogators of personal responsibility for potentially unlawful acts by shifting the meaning and function of necessity from a criminal defence to a principle of governmental action. As such, they provide bureaucratic authorization and justification for acts which violate the prohibition against torture.

5 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a survey of the state-of-the-art technologies used in the development of this approach, and propose a set of guidelines for their implementation.
Abstract: תקציר בעברית: מדינת ישראל מנהלת שתי מערכות שונות של משפט פלילי, בתחום השיפוט הריבוני של המדינה, ובשטחים הכבושים. מערכת המשפט הצבאית בשטחים אחראית לשפיטתם של פלסטינים תושבי הגדה המערבית, ונתפסת כמערכת נפרדת ממערכת המשפט הישראלי. עם זאת, מזה למעלה משני עשורים מאמצים שופטים בבתי המשפט הצבאיים יותר ויותר חלקים מן המשפט הפלילי הישראלי אל תוך המשפט הצבאי ומקדמים תהליך של מיזוג, המבטא מאמץ להידמות למשפט הישראלי, ולהביא להאחדה של שתי מערכות המשפט. השופטים הצבאיים מציגים את אימוץ החוק הישראלי כאמצעי להגנה על זכויות הנאשמים הפלסטינים. אך בשל פערים של שפה, ידע וחינוך משפטי, החוק הישראלי אינו נגיש לנאשמים ולעורכי דינם הפלסטינים ולכן החלתו אינה מאפשרת להם לתבוע זכויות על פיו ולנהל הגנה משפטית אפקטיבית, אלא מעצימה את הדרתם מתוך השיח המשפטי הצבאי. תהליך המיזוג אינו ממלא אם כן את ההבטחה ביחס לזכויות הפלסטינים, אך מנגד מאפשר לשופטים הצבאיים להציג את פועלם כחלק אינטגרלי של שיטת המשפט הישראלית, וכך לחתור ללגיטימציה בקרב הקהילה המשפטית הישראלית. תהליך המיזוג מנוגד למדיניות הרשמית של אי-סיפוח השטחים ושמירה על הפרדה בין המשטר הצבאי בשטחים למשטר הדמוקרטי בישראל פנימה. הוא מבטא הבנה שהתגבשה לאחר האינתיפאדה השניה כי הכיבוש אינו עומד בפני סיום. בעקבותיה החלה המערכת המשפטית הצבאית לפעול פחות ופחות כמערכת של כיבוש צבאי, האמור להיות זמני ולא לשנות את הנוף המשפטי המקומי, ולהידמות יותר ויותר למערכת משפטית קולוניאלית היברידית המשלבת את משפט מדינת האם והמשפט המקומי של הקולוניה. הפער העצום בין האופן שבו משתקפים בתי המשפט הצבאיים בכתיבתם של השופטים כמרחב חוקי המבטא שאיפה לצדק, לבין החוויה של חוסר חוק והעדר צדק מוחלט המשתקפת מדבריהם של עורכי דין פלסטינים, ניתן להסבר על ידי היחס בין הכלל לחריג. עבור הישראלים מהווה המשפט הצבאי חריג של שלטון החוק המוכר להם מהמשטר הפנימי של מדינתם. במונחים אלו, המיזוג עם המשפט הישראלי נראה כמהלך חיובי כיוון שהוא מכוון לצמצם את החריג לטובת הרחבת הכלל. אך עבור הפלסטינים שאינם חלק מאותו כלל, המסגרת של המשפט הישראלי אינה מספקת כל הסבר או הצדקה, ואינה מצמצמת עבורם את החריג שבתוכו הם חיים. ההתבוננות על מערכת המשפט הישראלית והצבאית כמכלול אחד מראה עד כמה היחסים בין שתי מערכות אלו מורכבים ומתעתעים. החוק הישראלי אינו מוחל בשטחים כעניין פורמלי, אלא באופן חלקי ובלתי פורמלי בלבד. הוא נותר לכן באזור הסף שבו הוא מוחל ולא מוחל בעת ובעונה אחת. ההפרדה המוכלת של מערכת המשפט הצבאית מאפשרת בה בעת לשמור על הכיבוש כחיצוני ואחר מהמשפט הפנימי, אך גם להכיל אותו תוך יצירת מראית עין של שלטון חוק. English Abstract: The Israeli military legal system in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is subject to International Humanitarian Law, which generally prohibits unnecessary changes to local law and the application of the occupier's law. However, application of Israeli law into the military legal system is a growing trend, and by now, stated policy. It is argued that the adoption of Israeli law, which better complies with human rights standards, promotes compliance with such standards in the OPT. This work examines whether, and if so to what extent, this is indeed the case. This question is addressed in terms of both International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, providing a specific context for looking at the interplay between these two branches of international law. With regard to fair trial rights, the standards of both are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The end result, as argued, is that the application of Israeli law does not promote human rights and specifically fair trial rights observance. Israeli law is applied without due regard to the local conditions in the occupied territory and respect to local laws and conceptions. It is widely practiced and generates fear of de facto annexation. It indeed promotes certain fair trial rights and equality between defendants in Israel and the OPT. But these are less substantial than other abundant and serious violations. More importantly, it is completely inaccessible to most of the defense lawyers, who are Palestinian, and thus violates the rights of the defense: the principle of equality of arms and the right to facilities for the defense. The discourse around Israeli law is internal to Israeli society and excludes Palestinian defendants and defense lawyers. Thus, theory has no bearing on practice, to the detriment of the realization of fair trial rights.

2 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: The four Visegrad states (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) form a compact area between Germany and Austria in the west and the states of the former USSR in the east as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The four Visegrad states — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (until 1993 Czechoslovakia) and Hungary — form a compact area between Germany and Austria in the west and the states of the former USSR in the east. They are bounded by the Baltic in the north and the Danube river in the south. They are cut by the Sudeten and Carpathian mountain ranges, which divide Poland off from the other states. Poland is an extension of the North European plain and like the latter is drained by rivers that flow from south to north west — the Oder, the Vlatava and the Elbe, the Vistula and the Bug. The Danube is the great exception, flowing from its source eastward, turning through two 90-degree turns to end up in the Black Sea, forming the barrier and often the political frontier between central Europe and the Balkans. Hungary to the east of the Danube is also an open plain. The region is historically and culturally part of western Europe, but its eastern Marches now represents a vital strategic zone between Germany and the core of the European Union to the west and the Russian zone to the east.

3,056 citations

01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Azoulay and Ophir as discussed by the authors argue that "the ruling apparatus in the Occupied Territories is an integral part of the political regime of the State of Israel" and "the occupation is not a temporal project, but rather a system of government, or in the authors' phraseology, a regime".
Abstract: Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir. The One-State Condition: Occupation and Democracy in Israel/Palestine. Translated by Tal Haran. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013. 318 pages. Cloth $85.00Reviewed by Jeffrey John Barnes"The Dual Regime: The Order of Violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories since 1967"Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israel occupied the demographically Palestinian regions of Gaza (from Egypt) and the West Bank (from Jordan), resulting in a dramatic change in governance for the territories' inhabitants, and fears of a second Nakba. The nature of Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories has become a popular topic for scholarly discussion, with recent literature formulating a dichotomy-either implicitly or explicitly-between Israeli rule within the Occupied Territories and that within Israel proper and focusing on Israeli means of rule in the territories. In the abbreviated English translation of The One-State Condition: Occupation and Democracy in Israel/Palestine, Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir challenge this dichotomy and provide a fresh theoretical framework and lexicon for understanding the nature of the Israeli regime vis-a-vis the Palestine question since the 1967 Occupation.The guiding thesis of Azoulay and Ophir's monograph is that "[t]he ruling apparatus in the Occupied Territories is an integral part of the political regime of the State of Israel" (183). In this sense, the authors portray the Occupation not as a temporal project (as Israeli state discourse maintains), but rather as a system of government, or in the authors' phraseology, a regime. This system of rule cannot be separated from the larger project of governance in Israel proper; indeed Azoulay and Ophir see the two as constituting one distinct governing apparatus.Azoulay and Ophir adopt a three-part structure to guide the reader through their argument. Part I, "A Short History of the Occupation Regime," provides the reader with a strong narrative of Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories from 1967 through the present that is consistent with contemporary scholarship. Chapter 1, "The First Decade," consumes the most space in this section as the first ten years of Israeli rule in the territories was "when some of the models and technologies of control that are in force to this very day were formed" (26). Azoulay and Ophir chart the emergence of Israeli rule of Palestinians as noncitizens, highlighting the joint Israeli fears of annexation (a move that would lead to the end of the Jewish character of the state through the incorporation of the territories' Palestinian population) and total withdrawal (a move that would delegitimize Israeli nationalist discourse) that contribute to the territories' liminal status. Additionally, the authors trace the Israeli state's methods of visually reproducing Israeli hegemony through means of permits, checkpoints, and military rule. Chapter 2, "The Second Decade," begins with the rise of the Likud party in the late 1970s and traces the changes in Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the commencement of the First Intifada in late 1987. The authors see the rapid growth in the incorporation of Palestinian labor into the Israeli economy as the defining characteristic of Israeli rule to emerge in this period, resulting in total Palestinian dependence on Israeli employment (65). The usurpation of Palestinian land, the exploitation of Palestinian labor, and Israeli attempts to combat Palestinian political aspirations led to widespread resistance in the territories, which the authors cover in Chapter 3, "Uprisings, Separations, and Subjugations." While Azoulay and Ophir avoid addressing why widespread demonstrations did not occur in response to these same activities during the first two decades of the Occupation (an omission that distracted from, but did not weaken, the thesis of this chapter), they do echo other scholars' claims that Palestinians were able to effect change in their status through protest. …

49 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1954

30 citations