This article examines the role that legal scholars in Israel played with respect to the constitutional overhaul promoted by Israel’s thirty-seventh government, during the period between November 2022 and September 2023. Members of the legal academia in Israel, including the authors of this article, took an active part in resisting the overhaul, engaging in a wide array of activities that draw on their professional knowledge and status. These activities included collective activism through the publishing of position papers, giving community talks, collaborating with other parts of the protest movement, providing media commentary, writing op-eds, taking part in political negotiations, and engaging in outreach to the international legal community and international institutions. The article examines this activity in the context of the scholarship on “scholactivism,” and addresses the critique that scholactivism may compromise the role of the scholar to disseminate knowledge and seek the truth. After reviewing the constitutional overhaul and the activities undertaken by legal scholars, the article argues that in the context of counter-populism, the activist goal of fighting populism aligns with, rather than contradicts, the scholarly goals of disseminating knowledge and seeking the truth. Furthermore, when constitutional law is the modus operandi of populist leaders, legal scholars have a unique role in identifying manipulations and threats and explaining them to the public. Nonetheless, the article also examines the risks associated with legal scholars’ activism, including potential threats to the integrity of scholarship and the status of scholars. It offers strategies for mitigating these risks and assessing them against the threats at hand.

The diverse and fascinating articles in this issue provide an opportunity to ponder on the field of parliamentary studies and the nature and characteristics of scholarship in this field.What are the major common characteristics of this scholarship?At first blush, the answer seems obvious -it is actually stated in the name of the field and of this journal: they all study parliaments.Yet, the answer is not so trivial, because this field and this journal, by their very nature, bring together authors from diverse backgrounds and approaches.These include researchers from diverse disciplines -most prominently from political science and law, but also from a range of other disciplines, each with its own research focus and own perception of how to conduct research.These also include practitioners from various positions -legislators and other parliamentarians and parliamentary officials; with both groups of researchers and practitioners coming from various countries, each with its own political and legal culture and scientific and academic culture (Benoît & Rozenberg, 2020;Szabó, 2021).Yet, I still believe that there are common characteristics for the scholarship by these diverse set of scholars, notwithstanding their diverse set of approaches, views and methodologies.In this brief essay, I will focus on one fundamental characteristic: the underlying belief that parliaments matter; that legislatures are important.Again, at first blush, this may also seem obvious and even trivial.One can assume (and hope!) that all scholars in all fields believe that their object of study is interesting and worth studying, and that their work is important, whether they spend their days developing a cure for cancer; doing basic research in a lab; studying frogs in the amazons; or analyzing the works of a poet who died 500 years ago.I argue, however, that the difference

This study explores the relationship between temporary legislation – statutes enacted for a limited time and are set to expire unless their validity is actively extended – and emergencies, focusing on a study of temporary legislation during COVID-19 in Israel. It offers both an empirical analysis – examining whether and how the use of temporary legislation changed during the pandemic – and a normative evaluation of this use. The study additionally empirically investigates temporary legislation’s political function of facilitating the passage of bills, examining whether temporary legislation exhibits higher passage rates and faster legislative processes compared to permanent legislation.

Covid-19 has shocked governance systems worldwide. Legislatures, in particular, have been shut down or limited due to the pandemic, yet with divergence from one country to another. In this article, we report results from a cross-sectional quantitative analysis of legislative activity during the initial reaction to this shock and identify the factors accounting for such variation. Exploring legislatures across 159 countries, we find no relation between the severity of Covid-19 and limitations on legislatures’ operation, thus suggesting that legislatures are at risk of being shut down or limited due to policy “overreaction” and that a health risk may serve as an excuse for silencing them. However, we find that legislatures in democratic countries are relatively immune to this risk, while those in frail democracies are more exposed. In partially free countries, the use of technology can mitigate this risk. We also find that the coalitional features of the government may lead to legislatures’ closing.

תקציר בעברית: בנייר עמדה זה אנו מתייחסים לשאלה מהן הדרכים המשפטיות לעצירת חקיקה, כלומר איך מעגנים משפטית ״השהיה״ בחקיקת ההפיכה המשטרית. אנו מראים כי: · להצהרת ראש הממשלה על השהיית הקריאה השניה והשלישית של החקיקה בנושא שינוי הוועדה לבחירת שופטים אין משמעות משפטית, בלי קשר לניגוד העניינים בו ראש הממשלה מצוי. · ללא עיגון משפטי של ההצהרה על השהיית החקיקה, ההידברות נעשית תחת איום קבוע של קידום מיידי של החקיקה לכלל השלמה בקולותיהן של סיעות הקואליציה. · נדרש אפוא לעגן באופן משפטי את ההחלטה על השהיית החקיקה, כך שלא ניתן יהיה לסגת ממנה באופן חד צדדי ופתאומי. עיגון משפטי כאמור יוכל להגשים מספר מטרות חשובות: למנוע ניהול משא ומתן להשגת הסכמות תחת איום, למנוע מחטפים, להראות רצון טוב ומחויבות אמיתית להידברות, להגדיל את האמון בין הצדדים, להעניק להידברות סיכוי של ממש, ולהגדיל את הסיכוי להגיע לפשרה בהסכמה רחבה. · השהיית החקיקה באמצעות הפעלת שיקול דעת של יו״ר הכנסת או יו״ר ועדת חוקה מותירה איום מתמיד על חידוש החקיקה בכל עת, ופוגעת באפשרות לקיים הידברות. · אפשרויות נוספות למתן תוקף להשהיית החקיקה הן בהחלטת מליאת הכנסת על הקפאת החקיקה המשטרית (עדכון ״החלטת הררי״) או בהחלטתה על תיקון תקנון הכנסת להגבלת כוחה לחוקק בתקופת ההידברות, שהינם הליכים הניתנים לשינוי בהחלטה מאוחרת של הכנסת, ברוב רגיל. · האמצעים הנוקשים ביותר – ולכן הרצויים – להבטחת עצירת החקיקה הם חקיקת חוק הקפאה – מורטוריום על חקיקה משטרית לתקופת ההידברות, או חוק שריון של חוקי היסוד הקיימים. · נייר העמדה מפרט את מכלול האמצעים, משקלם המשפטי, הדרך לבצעם, ומגבלותיהם, ומזהיר כי הידברות שאינה מבוססת על הגבלה עצמית מחייבת של הקואליציה נעשית תחת איום מתמיד שמונע הגעה להסכמות חופשיות ורחבות כפי שראוי להסדרים חוקתיים.

National uniform legislation exists in federations to implement national reforms where the central government does not have the direct authority to legislate under the Constitution. The State jurisdictions must work together on legislation to address urgent issues of national concern, national uniform legislation. Developing and drafting national uniform legislation are complicated and complex because they require the cooperation of many units with asymmetrical knowledge, competing priorities, limited budgets and timeframes, and at times irreconcilable differences. Empirical data analysis and statistics could provide an aid for decision-making in these circumstances. On examination of a large body of legal information on the 69 most significant Australian national reforms, this article finds factors that inhibit or promote sustainable uniformity of enacted legislation by using ordinal regression for the first time. This work provides significant evidence-based insights into the process of harmonisation in federations. Overall, our findings contradict the general belief that the uniformity is mostly dependent on structures alone (referred, applied, mirror, and hybrid). If sustainable uniformity is the goal,the decision-makers must allow resources for establishing the national regulator, ensure maximum uptake by the majority of the nine Australian jurisdictions, support the development of national uniform legislation through the National Cabinet, and be prepared for the second wave of national reforms through consecutive reforms. These findings have valuable strategic implications for policymakers, law reform agencies, and legislative drafters who intend to rely on evidence for future decision-making in terms of the most important national reforms. This paper provides recommendations for governments intending to ensure the sustainability of uniformity and adaptability of the Australian legislation for any future changes without losing the important consensus that has been achieved. The findings are also important for other federations seeking to implement harmonised legislation.

This article proposes developing an Integrated Legislation Drafting Environment (ILDE). It argues that such a development assumes vital im-portance in facilitating the legislative drafting process in the era of digitalization. This innovative environment can assist the drafter in handling large amounts of information and can substantially contribute to improving the quality of legislation. While integrated tools have gained widespread adoption across domains, legislation and regulation drafting has yet to embrace this concept, as drafters predominantly rely on traditional word processing tools. This article draws inspiration from a comprehensive examination of the essential components of professional integrative platforms, specifically emphasizing low-code and no-code tools, to outline the fundamental prerequisites for ILDE platforms. The article constitutes a significant contribution to advancing digital legislation quality by elucidating the characteristic requirements for developing sophisticated digital instruments to enhance the legislative drafting process. These platforms should be tailored to address the intricate logical connections, constraints, and regulations innate in the drafting procedure, thus enhancing its overall efficacy. Harnessing innovating artificial intelligence capabilities into ILDE can contribute to the quality of legislation, and improve efficiency, accuracy, collaboration, and accessibility, revolutionizing the digital era's legislative process.

This article presents an empirical and normative study of the widespread use of “sunset legislation”, also known as temporary legislation, as a tool for dealing with COVID-19 in Israel. First, the article presents the sunset legislation’s dramatic increase in Israel and traces the purposes and rationales that led legislators to use it. Second, the article evaluates sunset legislation vis-à-vis emergency regulations as the major alternatives for adopting temporary and urgent legal measures. It further addresses the difficulties and failures that have arisen or may arise from the widespread use of sunset legislation in times of crisis like COVID-19. Lastly, while recognizing that sunset legislation is ‘the lesser evil’ in times of crisis, a number of normative proposals are presented, so to improve sunset legislation during COVID-19 and to overcome the difficulties in using it.

תקציר בעברית: במאמר זה אנו מפתחים את הדיון בשתי שאלות מרכזיות שטרם זכו בתשומת לב פסיקתית או מחקרית מספקת: מהן הנורמות המשפטיות ההליכיות הנדרשות בחקיקה של חוקי יסוד ומהן אלה הנדרשות בחקיקה מטעם ועדה של הכנסת.הניתוח המובא במאמר זה מאיר ממד של חוקתיות פוגענית abusive constitutionalism שטרם זכה לעיון נרחב בספרות. עד כה התמקדה הספרות אודות חוקתיות פוגענית במקרים בה השימוש בתיקונים חוקתיים נועד להחליש את התכליות המקובלות של החוקה במשטרים דמוקרטיים ליברליים כמו שמירה על זכויות אדם או על עצמאות בית המשפט. לעומת זאת, הניתוח שאנו מציעים כאן שואב השראה מהדוגמה הישראלית כדי להצביע על קיומו של מודל נוסף ובלתי מוכר של חוקתיות פוגענית, כזה המשלב בין הליך למהות. מודל החוקתיות הפוגענית ההליכית/מהותית שאנו מנתחים במאמר זה מבוסס על שימוש בהליך החקיקה החוקתי על מנת לערער ולהחליש את התכלית המקובלת של החוקה – יצירת כלים לפיקוח ובקרה על זרועות השלטון והבטחת שלטון החוק וזכויות האדם. אנו מבססים את הטיעון בדבר שימוש בהליך החוקתי כנגד תכליות החוקה כמודל של חוקתיות פוגענית על ארבעה מהלכים עיקריים: (1) ההצדקה הנורמטיבית להליך חקיקה מובחן ומחמיר ביחס לחקיקת חוקי יסוד; (2) ניתוח היסטורי ופרשני שמבסס את קיומה של תפיסה מקובלת ביחס להליכים מחמירים או מובחנים ביחס לחקיקת חוקי יסוד ככלל וחקיקת חוקי יסוד מטעם ועדה בפרט; (3) ניתוח מופעיו של מודל החוקתיות הפוגענית ההליכי-מהותי בישראל; ולבסוף (4) הצדקת השימוש בביקורת שיפוטית כדי להתמודד עם השלכותיו הבעייתיות של שימוש פוגעני מסוג זה. ראשית, אנו מפתחים את הטיעון כי הליך החקיקה של חוקי יסוד מחייב נורמות הליכיות שונות ומחמירות יותר מאשר הליך החקיקה של חוקים רגילים. אנו מבססים טיעון נורמטיבי זה על תיאוריה חוקתית ודמוקרטית ועל תורת החקיקה. שנית, אנו מבססים את הטיעון אודות הליך חקיקת חוקי היסוד בפועל על מסד אמפירי וניתוח פרשני של ההיסטוריה החקיקתית של ישראל ביחס לחוקי יסוד. ככל שמדובר בחקיקת חוקי יסוד, אנו מראים כי לטיעון בדבר נורמות הליכיות מחמירות יותר יש תמיכה בתפיסות שהיו מקובלות במשך עשרות שנים בכנסת. כמו כן, אנו מציגים מחקר מקורי ומעמיק של ההיסטוריה החקיקתית ושל הנוהג ביחס לחקיקת חוקי יסוד בכלל וחוקי יסוד מטעםועדה בפרט, מקום המדינה ועד היום. על בסיס מחקר זה, אנו מראים מדוע פרשנות הסעיף בתקנון הכנסת המסמיך ועדה לקדם הצעת חוק מטעמה, ההיסטוריה החקיקתית שלו, תכליתו וכן הנוהג שהתפתח ביחס אליו, מלמדים על היותו של הליך חקיקה מטעם ועדה הליך מובחן וייחודי שנועד לחיזוק הכנסת כגוף. המהלך הפרשני מראה כי נהוג ונכון ליזום ולהכין חוק יסוד במסגרת זו באופן קולגיאלי, כלומר בהסכמה בין-גושית של קואליציה ואופוזיציה, ותוך הקפדה על קיום הליך יסודי. הדרישות המיוחדות לגבי הליך של הצעת חוק מטעם ועדה בשילוב הטיעון אודות הליך חקיקת חוקי יסוד מלמדים כי הליך חקיקה של חוק יסוד מטעם ועדה מציב רף גבוה ומחמיר יותר, הכולל במצטבר הן את הדרישות ביחס לחקיקת חוקי יסוד והן את הדרישות ביחס לחקיקת הצעות חוק מטעם ועדה. בשלב הבא, המאמר עוסק בשחיקה שחלה במחויבות הכנסת לנורמות אלו בהליך חקיקת חוקי יסוד, ומצביע על התדרדרות במימוש נורמות אלו בעשור האחרון, לעומת הגישה שנהגה לחקיקת חוקי יסוד בעבר. נוכח זאת, המאמר דן בהשלכות של מחקרנו לסוגיית הביקורת השיפוטית על חוקי יסוד. אנו מבססות את הטיעון הנורמטיבי ביחס לתפקידו החיוני של בית המשפט בשמירה על נורמות הליכיות ראויות בחקיקת חוקי יסוד (ובפרט מטעם ועדה), הן באופן כללי והן בפרט בעידן של קיטוב פוליטי ושחיקה של נורמות הליכיות. כן אנו מסבירות כיצד ביקורת שיפוטית של הליכי חקיקת יסוד מתיישבת עם הדוקטרינה הקיימת בדין בישראלי בנושא זה אך מחייבת הרחבה של דוקטרינת השימוש לרעה בכוח המכונן. מן הראוי שכלל הזיהוי של נורמה חוקתית לא יסתפק בכותרת "חוק יסוד" (הלכת בנק המזרחי) ובבחינה אם תוכנה של הנורמה מתאים להסדרה חוקתית (הלכת שפיר), אלא יכלול גם התייחסות להליך החקיקה והאם זה עמד במאפיינים של הליך חוקתי.המחקר נכתב על רקע הליך החקיקה הפגום של תיקון מס' 3 לחוק יסוד: השפיטה בנושא עילת הסבירות – תיקון שבוטל בהמשך בבג"ץ. במאמר מקביל שרואה אור ב"פורום עיוני משפט", אנו מיישמים את העקרונות המפותחים במאמר הנוכחי למקרה המסוים של חקיקת הסבירות, ודנים בהשלכות פסק הדין של בג"ץ על נושאים אלה. English Abstract: In this article, we delve into two central questions that have not yet received sufficient attention neither by the courts nor by academics. First, we explore the procedural norms required for the enactment of basic laws, and second, we ask what are the procedural norms required for the initiation and preparation of bills by a Knesset committee. We present the normative and legal framework essential for examining these questions, focusing on the enactment of Amendment No. 3 to the Basic Law: the Judiciary (“the Unreasonableness Amendment”) to demonstrate its significance. Our analysis illuminates a dimension of abusive constitutionalism that has thus far been overlooked in the literature. We contend that abusive constitutionalism can occur when the constitutional legislative process is employed in a manner that undermines and weakens the core objectives for which the constitution is intended, particularly the establishment of mechanisms necessary for the supervision and control over the various branches of government and ensure the rule of law. We thus advance the argument that the legislative process for enacting basic laws necessitates distinct and more stringent procedural standards compared to the legislative process for ordinary laws. This argument is rooted in normative principles derived from constitutional, democratic, and legislative theories. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this assertion finds support in longstanding conceptions acknowledged by the Knesset concerning the enactment of basic laws. Furthermore, we present an original and comprehensive examination of the legislative history and practices associated with the passage of basic laws in general, and basic laws initiated by the Knesset’s Constitutional Committee in particular, since the establishment of the State of Israel until the present day. Drawing from this analysis, we explain why the interpretation of the section in the Knesset’s bylaws which authorize a committee to advance a bill on its behalf, is consistent with a unique and distinct procedure intended to fortify the Knesset as an institution. This interpretive move underscores that it is customary to initiate and prepare a basic law within this framework in a collegial manner, marked by a bipartisan consensus between the coalition and the opposition, and while making sure to follow a thorough procedure. The special requirements pertaining to the procedure for initiating and preparing bills on behalf of a committee, when coupled with the requisites for enacting basic laws, collectively establish a higher and more stringent legislative threshold for passing basic laws on behalf of a Knesset committee. Subsequently, the article addresses the erosion of the Knesset's adherence to the norms governing the process of enacting basic laws, highlighting a decline in the observance of these norms over the past decade. In light of these findings, the article explores their ramifications for the matter of judicial review of basic laws. It establishes a normative argument regarding the vital role of the court in upholding proper procedural norms for the enactment of basic laws, particularly those initiated by a Knesset committee. This argument holds true both in general and especially in an era marked by political polarization and a deterioration of procedural norms. Lastly, the article clarifies how our idea of judicial review of the procedures for legislation of basic laws aligns with the existing doctrine in Israeli law on this matter. We demonstrate our claims using the case-study of the recent “Unreasonableness Amendment” enacted by the coalition, and call for intense judicial review on this matter.

In this work in progress, we offer a BERT-based Hebrew NLP model for the legal, legislative and judicial domains. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever BERT-based Hebrew NLP model developed for legal tasks. We illustrate the superiority of our model when applied to both supervised and unsupervised tasks in these domains. Our model is freely offered for public use.

This research note introduces two novel indexes designed to measure legislative activity (ParlAct) and use of digital devices to maintain legislative functions (ParlTech) during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. It will also present a novel comprehensive dataset on the functioning of legislatures during a critical period of the pandemic, providing scores for 152 domestic legislatures on both the ParlAct and ParlTech indexes. It will be argued that both indexes could also serve as templates for future research on legislative activity during other pandemics, crises and contingencies.

This chapter provides a comprehensive scholarly report and analysis of the legal responses to COVID-19 in Israel, covering the period from January 2020 to mid-April 2021. The chapter covers four main topics: I. Constitutional Framework II. Applicable Legal Framework (covering the entire spectrum of constitutional and international law; statutory provisions; executive rule making; and guidance) III. Institutions and Oversight (including the role and functioning of the legislature; role of and access to courts; elections; scientific advice; freedom of the press and freedom of information; ombuds and oversight bodies) IV. A detailed overview of Public Health Measures, Enforcement and Compliance (divided into three major periods corresponding to three major ‘lockdowns’ and then into the periods between lockdowns). This chapter is part of the Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to COVID-19 and the international Lex-Atlas: COVID-19 (LAC19) project.

This paper explores the role of the Israeli Supreme Court in exercising judicial review of COVID-19 control measures. It argues that the Court exhibited changes in its review methods and an adaptation of its role (and its demands from the other branches of government) throughout this prolong crisis. At the first stage, the Court focused on protecting institutional democratic safeguards, while exercising judicial restraint and greater deference than usual in its substantive review of the content of COVID-19 measures. The second stage, as time has passed, was characterized by greater judicial intervention, and growing propensity to hold COVID-19 measures unconstitutional, based on a combination of stricter substantive judicial review and an increased demand for an evidentiary and scientific basis to justify infringement of rights. The Israeli case therefore demonstrates the question of the changing role of judicial review in general (and of evidence-based judicial review in particular) during prolonged emergencies.

Omnibus legislation is the legislative practice of packaging together numerous unrelated measures in one long bill, which is often passed via an expedited process. In many jurisdictions around the world, this practice has become one of the major developments in the legislative process, a powerful policy tool, and a governance device with important implications for democratic governance. Omnibus legislation is known by many names (e.g., "Christmas tree bills"; "portmanteau bills"; "mosaic laws"; "arrangements laws"), and there is no one agreed-upon definition or conceptualization of this legislative practice. It is also one of the most controversial and hotly contested legislative practices. This chapter introduces the book and its rich array of contributions. The chapter presents and analyzes these contributions around four main themes: (1) conceptualizing and defining omnibus legislation; (2) multiple perspectives on omnibus legislation, including extent of its use, reasons for its use, and governance implications of its use, in various countries; (3) cross-national experiences with various means to regulate the use omnibus legislation; (4) normative evaluation of omnibus legislation.

Insufficient attention has been given to studying a vital organ jeopardized by COVID-19: legislatures. Legislatures across the globe have been shut down or limited due to COVID-19. In a comprehensive multidisciplinary study, exploring legislatures across 159 countries, we show that there is no causal relation between the severity of COVID-19 and limitations on legislatures’ operation. This suggests that legislatures are at risk of being shut down either due to unfounded fear from COVID-19 or as an excuse for silencing legislatures. We find that legislatures in healthy democracies are relatively immune to this risk, while those in frail democracies and authoritarian regimes are more at risk of becoming casualties of COVID-19. In partially free countries, the use of technology can mitigate this risk.

Legislatures and Rights: Comment on Legislated Rights – Securing Human Rights Through Legislation Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Email: Ittai.Bar-Siman-Tov@biu.ac.il; Founding Co-Chair of The Israeli Association of Legislation; and General Editor of The Theory and Practice of Legislation. I thank the participants of the book symposium on Legislated Rights: Securing Human Rights through Legislation at the IDC. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Volume 21, Issue 1, June 2020, Pages 112–128, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlz025 Published: 01 September 2020

Legislatures around the world have been challenged by the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic. Questions have arisen about parliaments' operation during the pandemic, their role in combating covid-19, and their relationship with the executive and other state actors. This editorial introduces the special issue on 'Legislatures in the Time of Covid-19' and offers an overview of its rich array of articles.

States around the world have struggled to come up with proper legislative responses to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic. This editorial introduces the special issue on 'Global Legislative Responses to Coronavirus' and offers an overview of its rich array of articles. It follows on from the previous special issue on legislatures in a time of Covid-19.