Abstract

The leading legal literature published after 9/11 recognizes the exception only in emergency. These writings follow the concept that “necessity knows no law” and, as Manin puts it, “security is the only acceptable principle” which justifies arbitrary coercion in liberal theory. Although Carl Schmitt criticized such liberal legal writing, including Hobbes’s sovereign, in that it does not recognize the power of the political identity, Schmitt’s sovereign also appears to decide on the exception only in “extreme emergency.” Accordingly, the judiciary’s political role is marginalized as the court always arrives too late, due to the urgent need to respond immediately. Based on this literature, court decisions always fall within the realm of legality, especially in non-emergency cases. In this article, I argue that the exception also appears in non-emergency cases and that the judiciary plays a serious role in normalizing the exception when the government acts without any legislative authorization. I further argue that these judicial decisions tell us about the very essence of the state’s political identity as it is linked to the authorities’ understanding of the state’s sovereignty. The case study that I examine is Israeli Supreme Court decisions that deal with cases brought by Palestinian citizens of Israel concerning territoriality claims, such as the right of property and the right to live in specific places with basic services. These cases were decided after the enactment of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in 1992, which is considered to be part of the “constitutional revolution” in Israeli legal discourse.

中文翻译：

---

法院可以将非紧急情况下的例外情况规范化吗？以色列最高法院的巴勒斯坦案件

摘要

9/11之后发布的主要法律文献仅在紧急情况下才承认例外。这些著作遵循“必要性不懂法律”的概念，正如曼宁所说的那样，“安全是唯一可以接受的原则”，这证明了自由主义理论中的任意胁迫。尽管卡尔·史密特（Carl Schmitt）批评了包括霍布斯（Hobbes）的主权在内的自由主义法律著作，因为它不承认政治身份的力量，但施密特的主权似乎也仅在“极端紧急情况”下才决定例外。因此，由于迫切需要立即作出反应，司法机关的政治作用被边缘化，因为法院总是来得太迟。根据这些文献，法院的判决始终属于合法范围，特别是在非紧急情况下。在这篇文章中，我认为例外情况也出现在非紧急情况下，当政府未经任何立法授权行事时，司法部门在规范例外情况方面起着重要作用。我进一步指出，这些司法判决告诉我们国家政治身份的本质，因为它与当局对国家主权的理解有关。我所研究的案例研究是以色列最高法院的判决，涉及以色列巴勒斯坦公民就领土权提出的案件，例如财产权和在具有基本服务的特定地方居住的权利。这些案件是在1992年《基本法：人的尊严与自由》颁布后做出的，该法律被认为是以色列法律论述中“宪法革命”的一部分。