10

1.

: [footnoteRef:1] . , - 1998 " " .[footnoteRef:2] -, . " , . , , , ."[footnoteRef:3] [1: : 32 ( , 2008). " : " 451 ("").] [2: " " (1998). " ", 217 (2000).] [3: , ' 13.]

-: -: - [footnoteRef:4], . [footnoteRef:5], . , , . [4: , " " 3 (2004).] [5: , '___.]

2.

1.

? . . . , , , - ( ), , . : " , , , , , ".[footnoteRef:6] [6: 1371 ( , 2007). " 9198/02 ' ( , 2.10.2008), ' 36 '; " 993/06 ' ( , 18.07.2011), ' 21 '.]

, .[footnoteRef:7] , , .[footnoteRef:8] . . .[footnoteRef:9] , , . [footnoteRef:10], .[footnoteRef:11] . . . , . , , . [7: : , 106 (2007).] [8: , "___, ' 36 '.] [9: , : 513 (2010).] [10: " 7608/99 () 1989 "' 1995 ", " (5) 156, 163 (2002); " 6450/01 , "' , " (5) 769, 773 (2001).] [11: , "___, ' 36 '.]

( ), , , .[footnoteRef:12] . , . , " , ".[footnoteRef:13] .[footnoteRef:14] [12: equality of arms, Jason Brickbill & Adrian Friedman, Access to Court in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF SOUTH AFRICA, Chapter 59-73 (Stuart Woolman et al. eds., 2006). ] [13: " 3115/93 ' , " (4) 549, 559 (1997).] [14: , "___, ' 106.]

. . " ",[footnoteRef:15] , -. . : . ( ) . . -.[footnoteRef:16] ? ? , - ? . -, - . [15: " 11339/05 ' , " (3) 93, 155 (2006).] [16: 122 (2004).]

2.

()[footnoteRef:17] ()[footnoteRef:18] . . , .[footnoteRef:19] ? . " , ".[footnoteRef:20] . . , . . " ... , . ".[footnoteRef:21] , . , , :[footnoteRef:22] [17: , "___, ' 128; , "___, ' 269.] [18: , "___, ' 120; , "___, ' 280.] [19: , "___, ' 128.] [20: " 1480/04 " ' - ( , 17.9.2006), ' 16 .] [21: " 910/86 ' , " (2) 441, 462 (1988).] [22: " 294/89 ' , " (5)445, 450 (1991).]

" . , . ".

, :[footnoteRef:23] [23: " 733/95 " ' ", (3) 577, 629 (1997).]

- , - raison detre . . , , . -... - , ".

, . .[footnoteRef:24] , , , . [24: , "___, ' 590.]

. ( ). . ,[footnoteRef:25] . . [25: Frank I. Michelman, The Supreme Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One's Rights. Part I, 1973(6) Duke L. J. 1153 (1973); Frank I. Michelman, The Supreme Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One's Rights. Part II, 1974(3) Duke L. J. 527 (1974).]

3.

1.

. . , , . . , " ".[footnoteRef:26] , .[footnoteRef:27] ;[footnoteRef:28] .[footnoteRef:29] , . [26: " 544/89 (1985) "' "," (1) 647, 650 (1990).] [27: " 3115/93 ' , " (4) 549, 560 (1997); " 3833/93" ' , " (2) 862, 874 (1994). 530 (1993).] [28: , "___, ' 530.] [29: , ' 508.]

2.

1.

. -: . -: , . , -: " ".[footnoteRef:30] , " ".[footnoteRef:31] , , " ".[footnoteRef:32] -: , " ".[footnoteRef:33] [30: 3 -: , " " 78.] [31: 2 -: , "___.] [32: 6 -: , "___.] [33: 39(3) -: , " " 158.]

2. -

. , -: ' :[footnoteRef:34] [34: 11() -: , " " 111.]

" , , , ".

-: ( " ) " ".[footnoteRef:35] , -: " ".[footnoteRef:36] -: . ' , " ".[footnoteRef:37] . -: " ".[footnoteRef:38] . . :[footnoteRef:39] [35: 15 -: , " " 448.] [36: 3 -: , " " 100. 7 .] [37: , , -, (1986), ' 13 .] [38: , 14() .] [39: : , (2005), 26 .]

"() .

() ;

() - ; ".

" . " ( )".[footnoteRef:40] ,[footnoteRef:41] .[footnoteRef:42] [40: , (2006), ' 21 . - www.huka.gov.il/wiki/ materials/huka_for_print.pdf.] [41: , 22 : "() , . () , , , , , ." ( ).] [42: , 23 : "() , , . () ." ( ).]

3.

, [footnoteRef:43] . , . " , , ".[footnoteRef:44] [footnoteRef:45] - 1997. " ".[footnoteRef:46] " - -. . -".[footnoteRef:47] .[footnoteRef:48] " "[footnoteRef:49] . " ". [footnoteRef:50] " - -: ".[footnoteRef:51] ' " . , ".[footnoteRef:52] ' " -".[footnoteRef:53] [footnoteRef:54] " . . . --". " - , ".[footnoteRef:55] " . .... -: . , ".[footnoteRef:56] ' " .... -: -".[footnoteRef:57] " . , , ... ".[footnoteRef:58] [footnoteRef:59] . , . - .[footnoteRef:60] ':[footnoteRef:61] [43: , "___; , "___; : (2011).] [44: , "___, ' 874.] [45: , "___.] [46: , ' 590.] [47: , ' 629.] [48: , '___ '___.] [49: , "____, ' 650; " 2808/00 ' , " (2) 845, 848 (2000); " 2146/04 ' , " (5) 865, 868 (2004).] [50: , "___, ' 163.] [51: " 9572/01 ' , " (6) 918, 921 (2002).] [52: " 6805/99 ' , , " (5) 433, 445 (2003).] [53: , ' 444.] [54: , ' 460.] [55: " 4980/01 " , ' , " (5) 625, 629 (2004).] [56: , "___, ' 868.] [57: " 3899/04 ' , " (1) 301, 319 (2006).] [58: , "___, ' 16 .] [59: , "___.] [60: , '___.] [61: , "___, ' 23 '.]

" -. - , . ... -, , ... , ".

[footnoteRef:62] "- -: . " , ... , -." [62: " 4988/08 ' ( , 1.08.2011), ' 9 .]

. , . ? -- ? ? , .

4.

. .[footnoteRef:63] . , , , . .[footnoteRef:64] . 34 Access to courts:[footnoteRef:65] [63: ,Michelman "___;Donald B. Brenner, The Right of Access to Civil Courts under State Constitutional Law: An Impediment to Modern Reforms, or a Receptacle of Important Substantive and Procedural Rights, 13 Rutgers L.J. 399 (1981-1982); Sundeep Kothari, And Justice for All: The Role Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Have Played in Providing Indigents with Meaningful Access to the Courts, 72 Tul. L. Rev. 2159 (1997-1998); Deborah L. Rhode, Access to Justice, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 1785 (2000-2001); Margaret Martin Barry, Access to Justice: On Dialogues with the Judiciary, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1089 (2001-2002); Deborah Perluss, Washington's Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Access to Justice v. Fundamental Interest Access to Justice, 2 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 571 (2003-2004); Deborah L. Rhode, Access to Justice (2004); Nicole Dulude, Unlocking America's Courthouse Doors: Restoring a Presumption of First Amendment Access as a Means of Reviving Public Faith in the Judiciary, 11 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 193 (2005-2006); Francesco Francioni, Access to Justice as a Human Right (2007).] [64: Mauro Cappelletti, Fundamental Guarantees of the Parties in Civil Litigation: Comparative Constitutional, International, and Social Trends, 25 Stanford L. Rev. 651 (1973); Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, Access to Justice:The Newest Wavein the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective, 27 Buffalo L. Rev. 181 (1978).] [65: 34 (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). , Brickbill & Friedman, "___, 59-1.]

Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

. 19(4) :[footnoteRef:66] [66: 19(4) (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Grundgesetz, GG).]

Should any persons rights be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts

24(1) ' :[footnoteRef:67] [67: 24(1) (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982).]

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

, . , , . . . -due process - equal protection.[footnoteRef:68] . .[footnoteRef:69] 21 :[footnoteRef:70] [68: Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Third Edition (2006).] [69: Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B. D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230; Tashni Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 442;ArunimaBaruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120.] [70: 21 (The Constitution of India).]

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

- due process .[footnoteRef:71] . . ? . [71: Manka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.]

5.

1.

.[footnoteRef:72] , " " " ". - -: . . , . ? [72: , ' ___.]

, .[footnoteRef:73] , , , , . , , , ? "" - "" .[footnoteRef:74] [73: , "___, ' 363.] [74: , "___, ' 34.]

2. -

- .[footnoteRef:75] -[footnoteRef:76] ?[footnoteRef:77] . .[footnoteRef:78] . .[footnoteRef:79] . , . [75: 2 - 4 -: , " " 150.] [76: - -, " 7052/03 - ' , " (2) 202 (2006). , "___, ' 78.] [77: " 1661/05 ' , " (2) 481, 609 (2005): " ." ( ). " " 271, 281 (1994); , "___, ' _____.] [78: , "__; " 6427/02 ' , " (1) 619, 717 (2006); " 366/03 ' , " (3) 464 (2005).] [79: " 4593/05 " ' ( , 20.09.2006). , " -, -: ?" 107 (2009).]

:[footnoteRef:80] [80: , "___, ' 34.]

", .... , 3 . - . , : , '' . , '' , , , , ".

, . [footnoteRef:81] . " . ".[footnoteRef:82] , , . ( ) . [81: " 6821/93 " ' , " (4) 221 (1995).] [82: , ' 431.]

. , 5 -: :[footnoteRef:83] [83: 5 -: , "___.]

" , , "

" "? , . , " " . .

3.

- -: . -. - , .[footnoteRef:84] . , . . :[footnoteRef:85] [84: , "__; , "___; , "___.] [85: , "___, ' 629.]

" , - -. . -. , -. -. ".

? , , . . , "- -".[footnoteRef:86] . , " -".[footnoteRef:87] , -. [86: , .] [87: , .]

6.

1.

-: , , . .[footnoteRef:88] . ; . , . .[footnoteRef:89] (- implications) . , . " " " ". . (- structure) [footnoteRef:90] [footnoteRef:91] . :[footnoteRef:92] [88: , , , "____, ' 82.] [89: 440 (2003). -Walter Sinnott Armstrong, Two Ways to Derive Implied Constitutional Rights, in LEGAL INTERPRETATION IN DEMOCRATIC STATES 231 (Tom D. Campbell & Jeffrey Denys Goldsworthy eds., 2002).] [90: CHARLES BLACK, STRUCTURE AND RELATIONSHIP IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 39 (1996).] [91: , Frederick Schauer, Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture, in EUROPEAN AND USCONSTITUTIONALISM 40 (Georg Nolte ed., 2005); Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 .S.C.R. 217 49] [92: LAURENCE H.TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 40 (3rd ed., 2000) . David Crump, How Do Courts Really Discover Unenumerated Fundamental Rights?Cataloging the Methods of Judicial Alchemy, 19 HARV. J.L. &PUB. POLY 795 (1995-1996).]

The constitutions structur is (borrowing Wittgensteins famous distinction) that which the text shows but does not directly say. Diction, word repetitions, and documentary organizing forms (e.g., the division of the text into articles, or the separate status of the preamble and the amendments), for example, all contribute to a sense of what the Constitution is about that is as obviously constitutional as are the Constitutions words as such.

:[footnoteRef:93] [93: " 2257/04 "-" , " (6) 685, 703 (2004).]

" . . . '' ''. . , . , . , , ... ".

, "" " " . , spaces which structures fill and whose patterns define[footnoteRef:94], - Invisible Constitution.[footnoteRef:95] . . , . . [94: TRIBE, "___, ' 47.] [95: LAURENCE H.TRIBE,THE INVISIBLE CONSTITUTION (2008). David Mullan, The Role for Underlying Constitutional Principles in a Bill of Right World, N. Z. L. Rev. 9 (2004).]

? " , . , ; , ".[footnoteRef:96] . - -:[footnoteRef:97] [96: , "___, ' 149.] [97: South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v. Heath, 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC), para. 20- 22. ]

I cannot accept that an implicit provision of the Constitution has any less force than an express provisionThe Constitutions of the United States and Australia, like ours, make provision for the separation of powers by vesting the legislative authority in the Legislature, the executive authority in the Executive, and the judicial authority in the Courts. The doctrine of separation of powers as applied in the United States is based on inferences drawn from the structure and provisions of the Constitution, rather than an express entrenchment of the principle. In this respect, our Constitution is no differentThere can be no doubt that our Constitution provides for such a separation, and the laws inconsistent with what the Constitution requires in that regard, are invalid.

:[footnoteRef:98] [98: , "___, ' 111.]

" --. , . . --. . , . . ".

. . , .[footnoteRef:99] - . ,[footnoteRef:100] ,[footnoteRef:101] [footnoteRef:102] (rule of law, Rechtsstaat) . (Tribe) , , , . :[footnoteRef:103] [99: Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3.] [100: Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, 752; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; Mark D. Walters, The Common Law Constitution in .Canada: Return of Lex Non Scripta as Fundamental Law, 51 U. TORONTO L.J. 91 (2001)] [101: Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1987 S.C..] [102: HORST DREIER, GG GRUNDGESETZ KOMMENTAR 256 (2006); .BVerfGE 2, 380 (403) ] [103: TRIBE, "___, ' 84. Paul R. Verkuil, The American Constitutional Tradition of Shared and Separated Powers: Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law and the Idea of Independence, 30 WM AND MARY L. REV. 301 (1989).]

The proposition that ours is a government of laws, not men that we live under the rule of law is a principle that, by just about any imaginable account, would have to be reckoned part of our Constitution

2.

, , ? . . . . (implied right).[footnoteRef:104] [104: Nationwide News Pty Limited v. Wills, (1992) 177 C.L.R 1; Australian Capital Television Pty Limited v. Commonwealth, (1992) 177 C.L.R 106; Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Limited, (1994) 182 C.L.R 104; Stephens v. West Australian Newspapers Limited, (1994) 182 C.L.R 211; Cunliffe v. Commonwealth, (1994) 182 C.L.R 272; McGinty v. Western Australian, (1996) 186 C.L.R. 140; Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp., (1997) 189 C.L.R 520; Kruger v.Commonwealth, (1997) 190 C.L.R1; Levy v. Victoria, (1997) 189 C.L.R 579]

. ,[footnoteRef:105] , . .[footnoteRef:106] " -."[footnoteRef:107] . . , " -".[footnoteRef:108] . . . , -. . . .[footnoteRef:109] .[footnoteRef:110] . . [105: , ' ___.] [106: , "___, ' 266 (), ' 278 ( ), ' 267 ( ).] [107: , "___, ' 629.] [108: .] [109: , "___.] [110: Suri Ratnapala, Australian Constitutional Law: Foundations and Theory, Second Edition 299 (2007). Maryam Minai, Helen Conrad and Philip Lynch, The Right to a Fair Hearing and Access to Justice: Australia's Obligations, Human Right's Law Resource Centre Ltd. (2009).]

7.

1.

: :[footnoteRef:111] [111: , "__, ' 35.]

" . ".

, . , .[footnoteRef:112] . . , . . , . : , ; , . [112: , "__, ' 16 " ."]

2.

. ? .[footnoteRef:113] , . . .[footnoteRef:114] . . . :[footnoteRef:115] [113: , "__, ' 53.] [114: , ' 56.] [115: , "__, ' 37 '.]

" . ".

, , . - .[footnoteRef:116] . , ,[footnoteRef:117] .[footnoteRef:118] ,[footnoteRef:119] . , .[footnoteRef:120] .[footnoteRef:121] , . [116: , "__, ' 214.] [117: , ' 295.] [118: , ' 373.] [119: , ' 391.] [120: , ' 419.] [121: , "___, ' 107.]

? . -: - :[footnoteRef:122] [122: 8 -: , "___.]

" - , , , ".

, - , " - ". , . " ".

, - ? . , , . . .[footnoteRef:123] , . . [123: " ()" ( , 2012).]

3.

1.

. . - - ? , (eternity clauses) .[footnoteRef:124] , , - .[footnoteRef:125] 1 , 20 , , - .[footnoteRef:126] - .[footnoteRef:127] [124: , " " ( " ", , 2005).] [125: 4 (Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, 1982). Ergun Ozbudun, Judicial Review of constitutional Amendments in Turkey, 15 Eur. Pub. L. 533 (2009)] [126: 79() , "___.] [127: 1(3) (The Constitution of the United States).]

. .[footnoteRef:128] . . .[footnoteRef:129] . .[footnoteRef:130] , . , . .[footnoteRef:131] [128: " " 361 ( , - (), 2011).] [129: Roy O'Connel, Guardians of the Constitution: Unconstitutional Constitutional Norms, 4 J.C.L 48, 61 (1999).] [130: Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine (2009); R. D. Gary, Phantom of Basic Structure of the Constitution: A Cristical Appraisal of the Kesavananda Case, 16 J. of Indian Law Instituta 243 (1974); U. Baxi, The Constitutional Quicksands of Kesavananda Bharati and the Twenty Fifth Amendment, 1 Sup. Cart. Cases. J. 45 (1974); N.A. Palkhivala, Fundamental Rights Case: Comment 4 Sup. Cart. Cases J. 57 (1973); P. P. Rao, Basic Features or the Constitution, 2 Sup. Cart. Cases. J. 463 (2002); P. A. Sathe, Amendability of Fundamental Rights: Golaknath and the Prposed Counstitutional Amendment, Sup. Cart. J. 33 (1969); P. K. Tripathi, Kesavanda Bharati v. State of Kerata: Who Wins? 1 Sup. Cart. Cases J. 3 (1974); A. Desai, Constitutional Amendments and the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine, in V. Lyer (ed.), Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law 90 (2000); G.J. Jacobsohn, An Unconstitutional Constitution? A Comparative Perspective, 4 Int. J. Cart. L. 460 (2005); D.G. Morgan, The Indian 'Essential Features' Case, 30 Int'l and Comp. L.Q. 307 (1981); Mathew Abraham, Judicial Role in Constitutional Amendments in India: The Basic Structure Doctrine, in Mads Andenas (ed.), The Creation and Amendment of Constitutional Norms (2000)195; R. O'Connell, Guardia of the Constitution: Unconstitutional Constitutional Norms 4 J.C.L. 48 (1999).] [131: Kesavanda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 S.C. 229; Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 S.C. 1789; Sambamurthy v. Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 S.C 1125; Chandrakumae v. Union of India, AIR 1997 S.C 1125]

.[footnoteRef:132] " , " .[footnoteRef:133] " , , , ".[footnoteRef:134] [132: " ", "___.] [133: , ' 378.] [134: .]

2.

? " . '' . , . '' . ".[footnoteRef:135] , . . , , , , . - . -, . - -:[footnoteRef:136] [135: , ' 379.] [136: , "____, ' 717.]

" , . , , . , . ".

- [footnoteRef:137] [137: " 4676/94 " ' , " (5) 15, 28 (1996).]

" , , , ".

:[footnoteRef:138] [138: .]

" , ".

.[footnoteRef:139] [139: " ", "___, ' 380.]

3.

? : , . , . , - . ?

, .[footnoteRef:140] . ;[footnoteRef:141] , ;[footnoteRef:142] .[footnoteRef:143] :[footnoteRef:144] [140: , '___.] [141: , '___.] [142: , '___.] [143: , '___.] [144: , "___, ' 629.]

" - -. . -. , -. -. . , - raison detre . , . ".

? . . ? , , . . . ?

. [footnoteRef:145] , " 2002[footnoteRef:146] , , " . ".[footnoteRef:147] , , - , -. [145: , "___.] [146: , "- 2002, " 521.] [147: , "___, ' 743.]

. , . , .

. . , . - , . , . , . - .