"When We Sit to Judge We are Being Judged" The Israeli GSS Case, Ex Parte Pinochet and Domestic/ Global Deliberation

Authors

• Amnon Reichman

Abstract

Through analysis of two recent cases, one Israeli and one British, this article advances a deliberative paradigm with which to understand emerging global, meta-constitutional norms, such as the prohibition against torture, enforced through transnational adjudication. More specifically, this article suggests that deliberation between the three branches of government, central to the concept of constitutional democracy, is not confined to the boundaries of the nation-state; rather, the development of jus cogens norms coupled with universal jurisdiction in domestic courts ensures that such deliberation crosses national jurisdictions. This development allows, for example, for domestic courts to review, and be reviewed by, foreign courts, executives and legislatures, for their commitment to meta-constitutional norms. In the absence of an international, hierarchical design, this emerging system of dialogue and peer review presents an interesting model of supra-national adjudication.

Disciplines

Comparative and Foreign Law | Human Rights Law | Jurisdiction | Law

Recommended Citation

Amnon Reichman, "When We Sit to Judge We are Being Judged" The Israeli GSS Case, Ex Parte Pinochet and Domestic/ Global Deliberation, 9 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 41 (2001).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjicl/vol9/iss1/4