The judicialization of politics has probably proceeded further in Israel than in any other democratic country. In the strong sense of the definition propounded by Torbjörn Vallinder (1992: 1), the civil judiciary in Israel, particularly the Supreme Court justices sitting as members of the High Court of Justice, are exercising power at the expense of politi cians and administrators. The justices now claim the authority even to review the internal workings of the theoretically sovereign Knesset (parlia ment). This situation represents a marked change from the norms of 46 years ago when the state came into existence. Then, power and authority were concentrated in the elected agencies, the Knesset and, particularly, the Government. Rampant partisanship, arbitrary and self-interested policies, and, worst of all, an inability to deal with crucial problems beset ting Israeli society, corroded that authority and, ultimately, the power of the elected leadership. The default of Israel's democratically elected leadership has led to the judicialization of politics.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study utilizes the recruitment of Israeli Supreme Court justices to explore that country's legal culture. The data indicate that professional legal criteria are the primary variable for the selection of Israeli judges, and that the political/legal culture supports a civil court system which operates independently of partisan politics. Thus, Israeli legal culture can be encompassed within a Weberian framework: it values adherence to settled rules. Paradoxically, precisely because the Supreme Court is seen as the guardian of fundamental values embedded in an objective legal order, authority—and increasing political power—has flowed toward Israel's premier non-partisan institution.