The article examines Justice Elyakim Rubinstein's approach to compromise in the judicial process, based mainly on his judicial record on the Israeli Supreme Court bench, (2004-2017) but also on his speeches and publications. The two arguments advanced here are first, that Justice Rubinstein believed in compromise (rather than adjudication) as the preferred outcome of the legal process; and second, that according to his reading of Hebrew Law, compromise is justified by more than utility, efficiency, and benefit to the common good. The article likewise considers the limits and shortcomings of Rubinstein's approach, and the manner in which he mitigated some of them.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2022 Indiana University. All rights reserved.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Cabinet Secretary
- Hebrew Law
- Israeli Supreme Court
- Justice Elyakim Rubinstein
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cultural Studies
- Sociology and Political Science
- Political Science and International Relations