IDI researcher Dr. Ruvi Ziegler appraises the judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court in the third round of constitutional challenges to legislation authorizing detention of asylum-seekers in Israel. He critiques the judicial assessment of explicit and hidden legislative objectives, the role of international refugee law in the decision, and the normative question of irregular entry of asylum-seekers, and highlights legal challenges concerning the removal of asylum-seekers from Israel to third states.
On January 10, 2012 an amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Act passed its second and third reading in the Knesset. In passing this act, the government—and the Knesset—chose to walk down a path that is incompatible with the protection of human freedom that is embedded in Israeli constitutional law and that is incompatible with Israel’s obligations under international refugee conventions. Below is a condensed version of an article on this matter that was written by Adv. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler for the IDI Hebrew website.
The Israeli government’s plans to deport en masse thousands of persons in need of international protection to undiscolsed ‘third contries’ pursuant to secret (denied, and effectively unenforcable) agreements are deeply troubling from a refugee and human rights law perspective. They should be called off.