The Benefits and Dangers of Proportionality Review in Israel's High Court of Justice

Authors

Michael Kleinman

Abstract

In the landmark case Beit Sourik Village Council vs. the Government of Israel, the Israeli High Court of Justice grappled with a highly charged question: should a state have to sacrifice its security to improve human rights? The court answered in the affirmative and held that certain sections of Israel's controversial security fence could not be built as planned. In these sections, the loss of human rights outweighed the security benefit of placing the fence through certain villages. Scholars focused on the court's proportionality review, which was the seminal aspect of the case. Through Beit Sourik and similar cases, this Comment addresses theoretical implications of proportionality review in HCJ decisions. Through extensive case analysis, this Comment determines how a court could best balance security and the right to life and bodily integrity against other human rights.

Recommended Citation

Michael Kleinman, The Benefits and Dangers of Proportionality Review in Israel's High Court of Justice, 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 589 (2015).
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol29/iss3/3