Abstract
Although this book focuses primarily on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Israel, it occasionally compares Israeli law with the law of the United States, the European Union, and other countries. The examination of other countries’ law is highly germane to a review of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Israel. This is, first and foremost, because the Israeli legal system does not operate in a legal vacuum. The Israeli legislature, and the courts, draw inspiration inter alia from foreign legal systems. That is particularly true in issues concerning cross-border trade and the resolution of cross-border disputes. The principle that customary international law forms an integral part of Israeli law has been established by several rulings of the Supreme Court.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Israel is a party to a number of multinational treaties concerning arbitration. Their interpretation will be subject, inter alia, to the interpretation of customary international law and treaty law. See Chap. 12 below for further discussion.
- 2.
See the comment of Justice Barak in C.A. 7092/94 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Edelson (Nevo, Feb. 16, 1995), “As we have established according to our sources that customary international law is a legal source in Israel, a door has been opened for the integration of customary international law in Israel. Against that backdrop, I agree with Deputy Chief Justice S. Z. Cheshin, who said that ‘it is incumbent upon us to rule that the stated principle has become part of our law by virtue of the fact that Israel is a sovereign, independent state. The Declaration of Independence has opened before the new state a window to international laws and customs, which all nations enjoy due to their sovereignty, and has enriched the system of laws with principles accepted in the law of the nations’ (Stampfer case).”
- 3.
28 U.S.C.A § 1738.
- 4.
Guyot vs. Hilton, 159 U.S. 160 (1895), supra at 11-12.
- 5.
Due to the large number of state laws applicable to the recognition of foreign judgments and their individual variations, this book will focus on the model Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA) , and not on the individual laws in each U.S. state. Indiana, Massachusetts, and Vermont are the only U.S. states that have not adopted the UFMJRA. Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, May 2012.
- 6.
The “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is one of the fundamental principles in the American judicial system, according to which each state in the United States must honor the judgments, records, and judicial proceedings of sister-states.
- 7.
N.Y. CPLR 3213 (motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint).
- 8.
13 U.L.A 39 (1986).
- 9.
Ackerman v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 841-842 (2d Cir. 1986), recognizing a foreign judgment despite differences between the foreign and U.S. interpretations of “due process of law.”
- 10.
Id.
- 11.
Id.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carmon, H. (2013). Comparative Law. In: Foreign Judgments in Israel. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32003-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32003-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32002-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32003-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)