What can we realistically expect from pre-enactment rights engagement, particularly in sensitive areas like counterterrorism, which pit “our” security against “their” rights? This article seeks to contribute to the ongoing scholarly effort to explore this question, through an in-depth case study of the Israeli Counter-Terrorism Law, adopted by the Knesset in 2016. The case study reveals a complex picture. On the one hand, the unrushed and depoliticized nature of deliberations on the Counter-Terrorism Law contributed to a parliamentary process that, while not challenging the government’s core policy agenda, did force it to justify and refine the specific, worthy purposes of particular provisions, to agree to some narrow-tailoring, and to improve certain procedural safeguards. These parliamentary processes were facilitated primarily by the institution of the Knesset committee legal advisor, whose non-partisan, independent status and wide-ranging advisory functions position them to facilitate informed rights-based deliberations in the absence of a formalized vetting process. At the same time, the case study reveals significant constraints on the potential for deliberative rights engagement, which are particularly salient in the field of counterterrorism, including the information gap—the fact that the government possesses a near monopoly on the factual expertise and information necessary to effectively evaluate counterterrorism policy, and the problem of voice—the fact that those whose rights are most likely to be curtailed by counterterrorism measures are underrepresented in the process. Relatedly, it demonstrates the importance of including in the process actors who are institutionally motivated to be skeptical of government discretion and who take seriously the risk of erroneous or abusive use of power.

中文翻译：

---

以色列反恐法中对权利的考虑

我们可以从立法前的权利参与中实际期待什么，特别是在反恐等敏感领域，这些领域将“我们的”安全与“他们的”权利相提并论？本文旨在通过对 2016 年以色列议会通过的以色列反恐法的深入案例研究，为探索这一问题的持续学术努力做出贡献。案例研究揭示了一幅复杂的画面。一方面，《反恐怖主义法》审议的不慌不忙和非政治化的性质促成了议会进程，虽然没有挑战政府的核心政策议程，但确实迫使它证明和完善特定条款的具体、有价值的目的，同意一些狭隘的剪裁，并改进某些程序保障。这些议会程序主要由议会委员会法律顾问的机构推动，其无党派、独立的地位和广泛的咨询职能使他们能够在没有正式审查程序的情况下促进基于权利的知情审议。同时，案例研究揭示了协商权利参与潜力的重大限制，这在反恐领域尤为突出，包括信息差距——政府几乎垄断了必要的事实专业知识和信息这一事实有效评估反恐政策和发言权问题——在这一过程中，那些权利最有可能受到反恐措施限制的人的代表性不足。相关，