IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v22y2010i1p55-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship Between the Supreme Court and Parliament in Light of the Theory of Moves: the Case of Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Assaf Meydani

    (Academic College of Tel-Aviv- Yaffo, Israel, assafmei@mta.ac.il)

  • Shlomo Mizrahi

    (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, shlomom@bgu.ac.il)

Abstract

The relationship between the Supreme Court and the legislature has been studied from various angles. This paper develops a dynamic model using the Theory of Moves. The model is then applied to a path-dependence analysis of the relations between the Supreme Court and the parliament in Israel between 1970 and 2007. While at the beginning of this period the Supreme Court limited the ability of citizens to appeal in matters concerning decisions of the parliament and the government, by the end of the period it had expanded this ability significantly, thus implementing an informal policy of procedural judicial activism. More specifically, the empirical analysis traces three turning points in the path-dependence analysis, which can also be explained and understood as temporary equilibria in the dynamic interaction ultimately leading to a stable equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Assaf Meydani & Shlomo Mizrahi, 2010. "The Relationship Between the Supreme Court and Parliament in Light of the Theory of Moves: the Case of Israel," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(1), pages 55-82, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:22:y:2010:i:1:p:55-82
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463109346469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463109346469
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463109346469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwin Woerdman, 2000. "Rationality And Stability In The Theory Of Moves," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(1), pages 67-86, February.
    2. Segal, Jeffrey A., 1997. "Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 28-44, March.
    3. Stefan Voigt & Eli M. Salzberger, 2002. "Choosing Not To Choose: When Politicians Choose To Delegate Powers," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 289-310, May.
    4. Gely, Rafael & Spiller, Pablo T, 1990. "A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 263-300, Fall.
    5. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 875-901, December.
    6. Breton, Albert, 1995. "Organizational hierarchies and bureaucracies: An integrative essay," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 411-440, September.
    7. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George Tridimas, 2010. "Constitutional judicial review and political insurance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 81-101, February.
    2. Lars P. Feld & Stefan Voigt, 2004. "Making Judges Independent – Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary," CESifo Working Paper Series 1260, CESifo.
    3. Álvaro Bustos & Nuno Garoupa, 2020. "An Integrated Theory of Litigation and Legal Standards," Documentos de Trabajo 536, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    4. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    5. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    6. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    7. Gretchen Helmke & Elena V. McLean, 2014. "Inducing independence: A strategic model of World Bank assistance and legal reform," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(4), pages 383-405, September.
    8. Axel Dreher & Katharina Michaelowa, 2008. "The political economy of international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 331-334, December.
    9. Mario Bergara & Barak Richman & Pablo T. Spiller, 2002. "Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: Congressional Constraint," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 1402, Department of Economics - dECON.
    10. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2007. "Explaining de facto judicial independence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 269-290, September.
    11. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Voigt, Stefan & Ebeling, Michael & Blume, Lorenz, 2007. "Improving credibility by delegating judicial competence--the case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 348-373, March.
    13. Karakas, Leyla D., 2017. "Political rents under alternative forms of judicial review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 86-96.
    14. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    15. Dreher, Axel & Voigt, Stefan, 2011. "Does membership in international organizations increase governments' credibility? Testing the effects of delegating powers," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 326-348, September.
    16. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    17. repec:gig:joupla:v:3:y:2011:i:2:p:107-140 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Benno Torgler, 2022. "The power of public choice in law and economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1410-1453, December.
    19. Voigt, Stefan, 2005. "Membership has its Privileges: On the Effects of Delegating Powers Internationally," Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 73, University of Kassel, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    20. Pablo T. Spiller & Rafael Gely, 2007. "Strategic Judicial Decision Making," NBER Working Papers 13321, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Raphaël Franck, 2018. "Judicial impartiality in politically charged cases," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 193-229, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:22:y:2010:i:1:p:55-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.