Human dignity in the Israel’s legal order – an outline of the problem

The traumatic experiences of World War II have highlighted the serious deficit of national and international measures to protect human rights and their ideological support to place human dignity as the main and indisputable pillar of a democratic state and supranational communities. Human dignity is nowadays one of the factors determining the court’s jurisdictional proceedings. This also applies to states that formally did not include it in the catalog of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. Qualitative, quantitative and comparative analysis of the functioning of the concept of human dignity reveals its various meanings and functions. They are determinants in assessing the activities of state authorities from the point of view of implementing the principles of a democratic state of law and the need to respect the rights of individuals. In connection with the richness of interpreting the concept of human dignity within the framework of constitutional values, one can not ignore the rich history of the doctrine of human dignity. It allows us to understand and define the nature of general concepts and give different meanings. Human dignity in many legal systems, including Israel, is a constitutional value, as well as the law that the constitutional norms guarantee. The issue of its regulation and definition in the Israeli legal order due to the specificity of the problem is an interesting issue, both theoretical and legal as well as practical.

The turbulent changes in the Middle East which were seen at the very beginning as good news for Israel, at the end of the day became more ambiguous. The Arab Spring and then the war in Syria that had erupted along with massive social protests ended up with regime changes, but what was crucial, the primary success of the Arab awakening was captured by Islamist movements. The changes in the Middle East were even deeper due to at least two factors – Russia „coming into” and the United States „going out” of the region. These new regional circumstances combined with the geopolitical shift in the Middle East and a crumbling American supervision made Israel conclude that its security has become more complex and the U.S has no more been the only significant great power player in the region. Hence the difficult political and military situation around Israel has created a need to adapt to security challenges and simultaneously, to take political opportunities. The goal of this paper is to highlight basic ramifications for Israeli security and diplomacy of the American and Russian factors in the current Middle East politics. The key questions are: How to secure Israeli interests in these new circumstances? How to assess, on the one hand, the risk of the ongoing decline of American interests in the region and, on the other hand, the complexity of the Russian strategy in the Middle East? Finally, whether Israel might be able to gain recognition by the Arab world, not to mention to keep its strategic domination in the region which is already being challenged by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Artykuł opisuje dwa przypadki rozwoju państwa opiekuńczego (welfare state): polski i izraelski. W obu przykładach mieliśmy do czynienia z przejściem z etatystycznego państwa opiekuńczego do modelu neoliberalnego charakterystycznego dla państw anglosaskich. W przypadku Polski dokonało się to częściowo, w przypadku Izraela w stopniu znacznie większym. Analizując rozwój welfare state na wskazanych przykładach, spróbowano także odpowiedzieć na pytanie o przyczynę kierunku tych przemian.

Freedom of assembly in times of a pandemic. Israeli experiences

Freedom of assembly is an essential element in modern democracies, also during emergency situations. The time of the pandemic is an example of the use of various restriction mechanisms of human rights. The Israeli case is worth discussing because as in other democratic states the political internal crises overlap with the pandemic emergency regulations and tensions between parliament and executive branch in law-making.

Liberal or illiberal? Perception of Israeli democracy in the European Union

Liberal democracy perspective dominates the perception of actors and partners in the foreign relations of European Union. This stems from the declared fundamental values of the Union: respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. This also influences the judgment of Israel, who connected to the EU with cooperation but also criticised for its attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Liberal democracies not only allow their citizens to exercise their right to vote but also guarantee a degree of protection from the state to all political life participants, maintain plurality, respect religious, ethnic and other minorities. Israel presents itself as a liberal democracy, therefore it seems important to verify if this view is shared by the European Union. The Union, member states and politicians in their documents or during the debates judge such aspects of Israeli politics as the occupation of West Bank, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, settlements in the occupied territories, policies towards minorities, non-government organizations, oftentimes taking a critical stance towards Israeli actions. This may indicate that, despite Israel being a close political and economical partner, it still does not comply with the fundamental values and leaves something to be desired.