<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.7" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-7.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Game of Chicken - Israel's Litigation Over Striking Down the Reasonableness Doctrine</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal" usage="primary">
    <namePart>Weill, Rivka</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm type="text">Author</roleTerm>
    </role>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource/>
  <genre authority="rdacontent">Text</genre>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">xx#</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <dateIssued encoding="marc">2023</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <originInfo eventType="publisher">
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text"/>
    </place>
    <publisher>Verfassungsblog</publisher>
    <dateIssued>2023-09-13</dateIssued>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marccategory">electronic resource</form>
    <form authority="marcsmd">remote</form>
    <form type="media" authority="rdamedia">Computermedien</form>
    <form type="carrier" authority="rdacarrier">Online-Ressource</form>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract displayLabel="Summary">Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side’s arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General’s unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.</abstract>
  <accessCondition type="use and reproduction">CC BY-SA 4.0</accessCondition>
  <note type="statement of responsibility">Weill, Rivka</note>
  <subject>
    <topic>Democratic Backsliding</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Israel</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Israeli Supreme Court</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Reasonableness</topic>
  </subject>
  <classification authority="ddc" edition="23">342</classification>
  <location>
    <url displayLabel="raw object" usage="primary display">https://verfassungsblog.de/game-of-chicken/</url>
  </location>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>Verfassungsblog</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <identifier type="issn">2366-7044</identifier>
    <name>
      <namePart>Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH</namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="doi">10.17176/20230913-220930-0</identifier>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">230913</recordCreationDate>
    <recordIdentifier source="DE-Verfassungsblog">10.17176/20230913-220930-0</recordIdentifier>
    <recordOrigin>Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl
				(Revision 1.140 20200717)</recordOrigin>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
