Judicial Review of National Security - the Israeli experience (1995-2013)
-
Abstract: Adjudication of national security poses complex challenges for courts. In Judicial Review of National Security, David Scharia explains how the Supreme Court of Israel developed unconventional judicial review tools and practices that allowed it to provide judicial guidance to the Executive in real-time. In this book, he argues that courts could play a much more dominant role in reviewing national security, and demonstrates the importance of intensive real-time inter-branch dialogue with the Executive, as a tool used by the Israeli Court to provide such review. This book aims to show that if one Supreme Court was able to provide rigorous judicial review of national security in real-time, then we should reconsider the conventional wisdom regarding the limits of judicial review of national security.
About the Speaker: Dr. David Scharia (PhD, LLM) heads the Legal and Criminal Justice Group at the United Nations Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED). Before joining the United Nations, Dr. Scharia worked at the Supreme Court division in the Attorney General office in Israel where he was lead attorney in major counter-terrorism cases. Dr. Scharia served as a Member of the experts’ forum on "Democracy and Terrorism” established by Israel leading think-tank the Israel Democratic Institute. He was National Security Scholar-in-Residence at Columbia Law School and currently serves as a member of the professional board of the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT). Dr. Scharia is a renowned expert on law and terrorism and the author of two books.
Encina Hall (2nd floor)
David Scharia
Coordinator of the Legal and Criminal Justice Group at the United Nations Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)
Speaker
United Nations Security Council
Seminars
Bomb shelters expose rifts in Israeli society
Paragraphs
In this Boston Globe op-ed, Visiting Scholar Moria Paz discusses bomb shelters to highlight the issues and realities surrounding war in Israel, citing the acknowledgement of the country's internal divisions as the key to their solution.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Journal Publisher
Boston Globe
Hannah Arendt zwischen den Disziplinen (German)
Paragraphs
With contributions by Stephan Braese, Barbara Hahn, Christine Ivanovic, Martin Klebes, Vivian Liska, Fred Moten, Sigrid Weigel, Liliane Weissberg, and Thomas Wild, this book explores the thoughts of Hannah Arendt which move in a border area between the disciplines and yet goes beyond the concept of interdisciplinarity.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Journal Publisher
Wallstein Verlag GmbH
Number
978-3835313736
Workshop on Immigration and Citizenship
Workshop Goals
On the first day, develop a set of research interventions (surveys, experiments, archival searches, participant observations, etc.) that will gain some leverage in measuring differential policies in Europe and their impact on integration, however specified; or in examining the various immigrant populations to measure their differential success in integration, however specified. Each of the participants (either singly or in collaboration) will write up one or two research proposals that lay out the outcomes of interest and the strategy for explaining variation on those outcomes. Discuss problems and opportunities for each of the submitted proposals and fulfill this first goal.
The second goal of the workshop, and the subject for the second day, to think through three related issues. The first is how to frame the set of proposals in a way that they all fit into a well-defined framework, as if each proposal were a piece of a coherent puzzle. The second is to think through funding sources for this set of interventions that would allow us to conduct the research we proposed and to continue collaborating across these projects. The third is to explore whether there are scholars whose work we know who should be invited to join our group and become part of the grant proposing team.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Agenda
I. Citizenship (discussant Thad) – [9-11AM]
- Hainmueller/Hangartner – Return on getting citizenship; encouragement design in Switzerland
- Gest/Hainmueller/Hiscox – Encouragement design on citizenship in US (Chicago)
- Hainmueller/Laitin – Encouragement design on citizenship in France
- Alter/Margalit – Immigration and political participation, where immigrants get immediate rights to citizenship (Israel)
- Dancygier/Vernby – return on citizenship for labor market success (Sweden)
II. Local Context (Rafaela) [11:15-12:15]
- Adida/Hangartner – RDD on Sudanese refugees in various US cities; experiment with IRC on Iraqi/Chaldian integration in El Cajon
III. Contracts of Integration (Yotam) [1:30-3PM]
- Hainmueller/Hangartner – Integration Contracts and Naturalization
- Hainmueller/Laitin – Integration Contracts in France
IV. Discrimination (Jens) [3:30-5PM]
- Ortega/Polavieja – Immigrants and Job security in Spain and elsewhere in Europe
- Margalit – Overcoming employer abuse of immigrant workers
- Dancygier/Vernby – failure of immigrants to get nominated for political office
Thursday, May 8, 2014 Agenda
Discussion on what investments in collective goods might advance this research perspective productively. We might look at favorable granting institutions and how we might combine our memos into a macro proposal; or we might think about building a common research infrastructure (in the way J-PAL has done for experimental development studies). Working towards a jointly authored volume might be another way to aggregate our research projects. All of this discussion depends on the complementarities that emerge from our discussions on Wednesday. David will chair the Thursday discussion.
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room
David Laitin
Department of Political Science
Stanford University
Encina Hall, W423
Stanford, CA 94305-6044
0
dlaitin@stanford.edu
James T. Watkins IV and Elise V. Watkins Professor of Political Science
David Laitin is the James T. Watkins IV and Elise V. Watkins Professor of Political Science and a co-director of the Immigration Policy Lab at Stanford. He has conducted field research in Somalia, Nigeria, Spain, Estonia and France. His principal research interest is on how culture – specifically, language and religion – guides political behavior. He is the author of “Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-heritage Societies” and a series of articles on immigrant integration, civil war and terrorism. Laitin received his BA from Swarthmore College and his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.
Affiliated faculty at the Center for International Security and Cooperation
Affiliated faculty at The Europe Center
Jens Hainmueller
616 Serra Street
Encina Hall West, Room 100
Stanford, CA 94305-6044
0
Associate Professor of Political Science
Europe Center Affiliated Faculty
Jens Hainmueller's research has appeared in journals such as the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Review of Economics and Statistics, Political Analysis, International Organization, and the Journal of Statistical Software, and has received awards from the American Political Science Association, the Society of Political Methodology, the Midwest Political Science Association.
Hainmueller received his PhD from Harvard University and also studied at the London School of Economics, Brown University, and the University of Tübingen. Before joining Stanford, he served on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Claire Adida
UC San Diego
Speaker
Dominik Hangartner
London School of Economics and Political Science
Speaker
Kare Vernby
Uppsala University, Sweden
Speaker
Yotam Margalit
Columbia University
Speaker
Francesc Ortega
Queens College CUNY
Speaker
Thad Dunning
UC Berkeley
Speaker
Rafaela Dancygier
Princeton University
Speaker
Simon Ejdemyr
Stanford University
Speaker
Simon Hix
London School of Economics and Political Science
Speaker
Workshops
An Army Like No Other: The Origins of Military Culture
-
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Gil-li Vardi joined CISAC as a visiting scholar in December 2011. She completed her PhD at the London School of Economics in 2008, and spent two years as a research fellow at the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War at the University of Oxford, after which she joined Notre Dame university as a J. P. Moran Family Assistant Professor of Military History.
Her research examines the interplay between organizational culture, doctrine, and operational patterns in military organizations, and focuses on the incentives and dynamics of change in military thought and practice.
Driven by her interest in both the German and Israeli militaries and their organizational cultures, Vardi is currently revising her dissertation, "The Enigma of Wehrmacht Operational Doctrine: The Evolution of Military Thought in Germany, 1919-1941," alongside preparing a book manuscript on the sources of the Israeli Defence Forces’ (IDF) early strategic and operational perceptions and preferences.
CISAC Conference Room
Gil-li Vardi
Not in residence
0
gvardi@stanford.edu
Lecturer
Gil-li Vardi joined CISAC as a visiting scholar in December 2011. She completed her PhD at the London School of Economics in 2008, and spent two years as a research fellow at the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War at the University of Oxford, after which she joined Notre Dame university as a J. P. Moran Family Assistant Professor of Military History.
Her research examines the interplay between organizational culture, doctrine, and operational patterns in military organizations, and focuses on the incentives and dynamics of change in military thought and practice.
Driven by her interest in both the German and Israeli militaries and their organizational cultures, Vardi is currently revising her dissertation, "The Enigma of Wehrmacht Operational Doctrine: The Evolution of Military Thought in Germany, 1919-1941," alongside preparing a book manuscript on the sources of the Israeli Defence Forces’ (IDF) early strategic and operational perceptions and preferences.
Joel Beinin
Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford
Commentator
Seminars
Seoul-Tokyo Relations in Peril: Is a "Reset" Possible?
-
Koret Distinguished Lecture Series: Lecture IV
From early 2012, South Korea-Japan relations worsened due to what many Koreans regard as a series of Japanese provocations involving historical and territorial disputes. Unfortunately, the neighbors failed to utilize the opportunity to improve the situation following leadership changes in both countries at the beginning of 2013. Today their bilateral relationship, long considered a cornerstone of peace and stability in Northeast Asia, appears to the worst since the normalization of diplomatic ties in 1965. Former Korean ambassador to Japan Shin Kak-soo will analyze the complicated structural reasons behind this downward spiral and explore whether differences over history can be addressed and an early diplomatic "reset" achieved.
Ambassador Shin has served various diplomatic positions during his thirty-five year career in foreign affairs, including service as ambassador to the State of Israel from 2006 to 2008 and to Japan from 2011 to 2013. He is currently a professor at the Korean National Diplomatic Academy and also a special research fellow at the Institute of Japanese Studies, Seoul National University.
The Koret Distinguished Lecture Series was established in 2013 with the generous support of the Koret Foundation.
Philippines Conference Room
Shin Kak-soo
former Korean Ambassador to Japan
Speaker
Lectures
International Law and Social Facts: Some Experimental Data on War Crimes Investigations, Attitudes, and Perceived Credibility of Facts
-
ABOUT THE SPEAKER:
Shiri Krebs is a JSD Candidate at Stanford Law School, specializing in international criminal and humanitarian law. She was recently awarded the Christiana Shi Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship in International Studies, and was also named the Zukerman Fellow, and Law and International Security Predoctoral Fellow at Stanford Center on International Security and Cooperation (CISAC).
Her doctoral dissertation focuses on war crimes investigations and fact-finding during armed conflicts. This interdisciplinary research project combines theories and methods from law, psychology, sociology and political science, including online survey experiments.
From 2005 to 2010 Shiri served as legal advisor on international law matters in the Chief-Justice's chambers, the Israeli Supreme Court. During that time she has taught public international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a teaching assistantship which granted her the Dean's award for excellent junior faculty members, as well as 'best teacher' award. After leaving the Supreme Court, Shiri joined the Israeli Democracy Institute as a researcher, working on 'Terrorism and Democracy' projects, and publishing frequent op-eds in various newspapers and blogs.
In September 2010 Shiri started her graduate studies at Stanford Law School. Her Masters thesis - an empirical analysis of preventive detention cases - was presented in several international conferences and has won the Steven M. Block Civil Liberties Award.
In 2012, while working on her dissertation, Shiri was appointed as a Teaching Scholar at Santa Clara University School of Law, teaching international criminal law and international humanitarian law. She is currently serving as a Teaching Assistant for CISAC's Interschool Honors Program in International Security Studies.
CISAC Conference Room
Shiri Krebs
Zukerman Fellow, Law and International Security Fellow, CISAC
Speaker
Mark Kelman
James C. Gaither Professor of Law and Vice Dean, Stanford Law School
Commentator
Seminars
Joint CISAC-SCICN Event -- The Face of the Enemy: Gender, Threat, Dehuamnization, and Support for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Experimental and Polling Data
-
This event is co-sponsored by the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation (SCICN).
Ifat Maoz is a Full Professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism, former Head of the Smart Family Institute of Communications at the Hebrew University (2008-2013), Director of the Swiss Center and Graduate Program of Conflict Studies (on Sabbatical leave 2013-14) and holds the Danny Arnold Chair in Communication. Prof. Maoz is a social psychologist researching psychology and media in conflict and intergroup relations. She has been a visiting scholar at the Psychology Department of Stanford University (1996) and a senior research fellow at the Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania and Bryn Mawr College (2002-3, 2006-8). Her current main interests include psychological, moral and media-related aspects in conflict and peace-making, cognitive processing of social and political information, dynamics of intergroup communication in conflict, models of intergroup encounters, audience responses, and public opinion in conflict and peace making. On sabbatical leave, Stanford University, Department of Psychology.
CISAC Conference Room
Ifat Maoz
Professor, Department of Communication and Journalism, Head, Swiss Center for Conflict Research, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Visiting Scholar, Department of Psychology and SCICN, Stanford
Speaker
Lee Ross
Professor of Psychology, Stanford
Commentator
Seminars
Stanford scholars consider historic nuclear deal with Tehran
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs
Iran has struck a historic deal with the United States and five other world powers (known as the P5+1), agreeing to temporarily halt its nuclear program for six months in exchange for limited and gradual relief of sanctions. Iran agreed to halt its uranium enrichment above 5 percent and the foreign powers agreed to give Iran access to $4.2 billion from oil sales. The six-month period will now give diplomats time to negotiate a more sweeping agreement.
We ask three Stanford scholars to weigh in on the technical and political merits of the agreement. CISAC Senior Fellow, Siegfried Hecker, has been working on Track II diplomacy with Tehran in recent years and was one of a number of Americans who met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his delegation of diplomats and nuclear scientists after the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York in September. Iranian-American Abbas Milani is director of Hamid and Christina Moghadam Program in Iranian Studies at Stanford and a contributing editor at The New Republic. Ivanka Barzashka is a CISAC affiliate and a research associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College, London, who specializes in Iran’s nuclear capability.
Just how close did Iran come to being able to build a bomb?
Hecker: Very close, possibly weeks away from making sufficient highly enriched uranium bomb fuel, and six months or so away from building a nuclear weapon. Iran developed the nuclear weapon option under the umbrella of the pursuit of civilian reactor fuel. The technologies for developing reactor fuel and bomb fuel are the same, the difference is in the level of enrichment in Uranium-235: 3 to 5 percent for commercial reactors, as much as 20 percent for research and medical isotope production reactors, compared to roughly 90 percent for weapons. The IAEA reports that Iran has not satisfactorily explained nor given access to work and sites suspected of past nuclear weapons-related activities.
This leads me to conclude that Iran had likely previously done most of the work necessary to build nuclear weapons once it obtained the capacity to produce bomb fuel. Iran’s extensive missile development and testing program also points to Tehran pursuing the option of missile deliverable nuclear weapons.
Does the agreement make it more difficult for Iran to pursue the bomb?
Hecker: Yes, the agreement places temporary limits on the level of enrichment of nuclear material and provides for the conversion or dilution of the highest enriched material (20 percent). It will also temporarily halt Iran installing more or better centrifuges to produce enriched uranium at an increasing rate. Iran has also agreed to temporarily halt construction of the heavy-water reactor in Arak. These steps modestly increase the amount of time it would take Iran to obtain nuclear bomb fuel in a breakout scenario. In addition, increased monitoring of facilities as called for in the agreement will provide us with a better understanding of existing capabilities in known facilities and what may exist in potential covert facilities.
They were very close ... six months or so away from building a nuclear weapon." - Hecker
Why is Iran’s heavy-water reactor in Arak of such concern?
Hecker: It provides a potential second path to the bomb. Iranian nuclear specialists recently told me in New York that they began to design that reactor 20 years ago to replace the old, small American-provided reactor in Tehran that was being used for medical isotope production and research. Construction is several years behind schedule, but I was told it is close to completion. When complete, it would allow Iran to produce badly needed medical isotopes. But concurrently, the choice of reactor design and power level also means that it will produce enough plutonium to fuel one or two bombs per year if Iran decided to extract the plutonium from the spent reactor fuel. The Iranian specialists told me that they are very keen to find a solution that provides them with the means to make medical isotopes and alleviates international concerns about plutonium production. That’s a worthy goal, but a tall order that was left for the long-term agreement.
What prevented Iran from building the bomb?
Hecker: I believe Iran’s leadership settled for developing the option for the bomb, but has not yet decided to build or demonstrate the bomb. Until recently, it is also likely that Iran did not have sufficient bomb fuel to build the bomb. I believe they now have that capacity; therefore our focus should be on convincing them not to flip the bomb production switch.
Can you envision a long-term agreement that will prevent Iran from building the bomb?
Hecker: Completely getting rid of the bomb option is not possible through military action or sanctions with political pressure. The only chance is through diplomatic means. We need to make it clear to the Iranian regime that they are better off without pursuing the bomb. This will take time. Iran Foreign Minister Zarif told me that even appearing to pursue the bomb is bad for Iran’s nuclear security. Now if we can only get the Iranian leadership to believe that. If Iran wants nuclear energy and relations with the West, I believe we need nuclear integration, not isolation, such as those peaceful programs in South Korea and Japan.
Kerry's video message about the Geneva Talks
Stepping aside from the leaders and countries involved, what do you think this six-month agreement means to the Iranian people themselves?
Milani: I think in the short run, it has brought them a double sense of joy and relief: joy that war might be averted, and relief that dire days of economic hardships might begin to end and that maybe the country will no longer be a pariah and join the community of nations. But I think there is also some trepidation: Will the interim agreements turn into an enduring policy or will the radicals use the interim sanction relief to get out of the current jam and then resume their policies?
Are you hopeful this is a significant step forward or is it too early to tell?
Milani: I think it is too early to be definitive but my sense is that momentum is building for the successful continuation of the thaw. Policies of the regime in the last years brought the country to the verge of the abyss. One could put a bit of Biblical touch to what President Rouhani himself says: men and women do not live by centrifuges alone. They need bread and freedom.
This is a win for Obama but it also appears to be a huge win for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Do you believe he is sincere in his commitment to negotiate and keep the talks on track?
Milani: I think Rouhani is one of the cleverest, most cunning and brutality pragmatic leaders the Islamic Republic has seen. He understands that the status quo is untenable and fashions himself as its potential reforming savior. He needs to make this deal work – one that is acceptable to the West, and the international community and sellable domestically as at least a win-win agreement – if he is to politically accomplish his goals as a disciplined man of great ambitions.
The Israelis are up in arms and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal “a historic mistake” that gives too much to the Iranians. But shouldn’t they be pleased that Iran has stepped back?
Milani: Many in Israel are up in arms, yet others are confident that the U.S. and EU will pursue their interests while never making a deal that threatens Israel's security. In time I think the second narrative might even dominate Israeli discourse.
Is the deal nothing more than a successful confidence-building exercise?
Barzashka (As told to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Nov. 25): The agreement, the first in nearly a decade of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, is a win for diplomacy and proof that Obama’s strategy of direct engagement with Iran works. Enabled by high-level, face-to-face meetings between Tehran and Washington, the deal was struck despite significant opposition by hardliners in the United States, Iran and Israel.
The P5+1 and Iran adopted tangible, though modest, confidence-building measures that demonstrate both sides are serious about negotiations. The deal reflects reasonable compromises. For example, the P5+1 initially demanded that stockpiled, 20 percent-enriched uranium be shipped out of Iran, but exporting uranium was unacceptable for Tehran. Instead, the two sides agreed that Iran would convert 20-percent enriched uranium hexafluoride to uranium oxide or downblend it to below 5 percent—measures that still buy threat reduction without crossing Iran’s red line.
Finally, the agreement succeeds in building trust by leaving out the hard questions, such as Iran’s right to enrichment, which would be addressed during the next phase of negotiations.
Hero Image
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his fellow P5+1 foreign
ministers, as well as Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (center) listen as European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton speaks
after the group concluded negotiations about Iran's nuclear capabilities on November 24, 2013.
U.S. Department of State
ministers, as well as Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (center) listen as European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton speaks
after the group concluded negotiations about Iran's nuclear capabilities on November 24, 2013.
All News button
1