The quarter-century anniversary of Israel's ratification of the major United Nations (UN) human rights treaties is an opportunity to revisit the formal and informal interaction between domestic and international Bills of Rights in Israel. This study reveals that the human rights conventions lack almost entirely a formal domestic legal status. The study identifies a minor shift in the scope of the Israeli Supreme Court's reference to international law, as the Court now cites international human rights law to justify decisions that a state action is unlawful, and not only to support findings that an action is valid. This shift may be the result of other reasons, for instance, a ‘radiation’ of the Court's relatively extensive use of international humanitarian law in reviewing state actions taken in the Occupied Territories. However, it may also reflect a perception of enhanced legitimacy of referring to international human rights law as a point of reference in human rights adjudication following ratification of the treaties.At the same time, the Court continues to avoid acknowledging incompatibility between domestic law and international law. It refers to the latter only to support its interpretation of Israeli constitutional law, as it did before the ratification. This article critically evaluates this practice. While international human rights law should not be binding at the domestic level, because of its lack of sufficient democratic legitimacy in Israel, it should serve as an essential benchmark. The Court may legitimise a human rights infringement that is unjustified according to international law, but such incompatibility requires an explicit justification. The Court, together with the legislature and the government, are required to engage critically with the non-binding norms set by the ratified UN human rights treaties.

中文翻译：

---

国际法阴影下的国内人权审判：以色列人权公约的现状

以色列批准主要联合国 (UN) 人权条约的 25 周年纪念是一个重新审视以色列国内和国际权利法案之间正式和非正式互动的机会。这项研究表明，人权公约几乎完全缺乏正式的国内法律地位。该研究发现以色列最高法院在参考国际法的范围内发生了微小的变化，因为该法院现在援引国际人权法来证明国家行为非法的决定是正当的，而不仅仅是支持一项行为有效的结论。这种转变可能是其他原因的结果，例如，法院在审查被占领土上采取的国家行动时相对广泛地使用国际人道法的“辐射”。然而，这也可能反映了在条约批准后将国际人权法作为人权裁决参考点的合法性增强的看法。同时，法院继续避免承认国内法与国际法之间的不相容性。它提到后者只是为了支持它对以色列宪法的解释，就像它在批准之前所做的那样。本文批判性地评估了这种做法。虽然国际人权法在国内层面不应该具有约束力，但由于其在以色列缺乏足够的民主合法性，它应该作为一个重要的基准。法院可以将根据国际法不合理的侵犯人权行为合法化，但这种不相容需要明确的理由。法院，