1. The Basic Laws Framework

Israel’s constitutional structure is based on Basic Laws, which function like constitutional chapters.

Key Basic Laws include:

• Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992)
• Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994)
• Basic Law: The Judiciary
• Basic Law: The Knesset

These laws form the constitutional foundation of judicial review.

2. Constitutional Revolution (1992)

The turning point came in 1992 when the Supreme Court interpreted Basic Laws as supreme constitutional norms.

Key principles introduced:

• Fundamental rights have constitutional status
• Ordinary laws can be struck down if they violate Basic Laws
• Courts can conduct judicial review of legislation

This was famously called the “constitutional revolution.”

3. Grounds of Constitutional Review

The Supreme Court reviews laws based on:

(A) Limitation Clause Test (Section 8 of Basic Law)

A law violating rights is valid only if:

• It is enacted for a proper purpose
• It is proportional
• It fits values of Israel as a democratic state

(B) Proportionality Doctrine

Includes:

• Rational connection
• Least restrictive means
• Proportional benefit vs harm

4. Landmark Case Laws

1. Bank Mizrahi v. Migdal Cooperative Village (1995)

• Landmark constitutional case
• Held:
  • Basic Laws have constitutional supremacy
  • Courts can invalidate conflicting statutes
• Significance:
  • Official start of judicial constitutional review in Israel

2. United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal (1995)

• Reinforced Bank Mizrahi doctrine
• Held:
  • Knesset is bound by Basic Laws
  • Judicial review is legitimate
• Significance:
  • Confirmed constitutional hierarchy

3. Adalah v. Minister of Interior (2006)

• Issue: Citizenship restrictions for Palestinians
• Held:
  • Law violated human dignity rights
  • Failed proportionality test
• Significance:
  • Strengthened equality and dignity protection

4. HCJ 7052/03 Adalah v. Minister of Interior (2006 Family Reunification Case)

• Same case series
• Held:
  • Restrictions on family unification unconstitutional in part
• Principle:
  • National security measures must pass strict proportionality

5. Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel (2004)

• Issue: Separation barrier route in West Bank
• Held:
  • Some sections disproportionate
• Principle:
  • Even security policies must respect proportionality
• Significance:
  • Global landmark in human rights vs security balance

6. Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel (2005)

• Issue: West Bank security fence
• Held:
  • Reaffirmed proportionality doctrine
  • Some routing changes required
• Significance:
  • Expanded judicial control over military decisions

7. Ka’adan v. Israel Lands Administration (2000)

• Issue: Discriminatory land allocation
• Held:
  • State cannot discriminate on ethnic grounds
• Principle:
  • Equality is a constitutional value
• Significance:
  • Major civil rights advancement

8. HCJ 6427/02 Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset (2006)

• Issue: Government appointment legality
• Held:
  • Public administration must meet constitutional standards
• Significance:
  • Expanded judicial review over executive actions

5. Key Doctrines Developed

(A) Constitutional Supremacy Without Formal Constitution

• Basic Laws act as constitutional norms

(B) Proportionality Test (Central Doctrine)

Used in nearly all rights cases

(C) Judicial Activism

• Court plays strong role in governance oversight

(D) Human Dignity as Core Value

• Central to rights interpretation

6. Unique Features of Israeli Model

(1) Unwritten Constitution

• No single codified document

(2) Strong Judicial Review

• Courts can strike down legislation

(3) Evolving Constitutional Structure

• Basic Laws can be amended by Knesset

(4) Security vs Rights Tension

• Frequent conflict due to national security issues

7. Criticism of Israeli Constitutional Review

(A) Democratic Legitimacy Debate

• Critics argue judiciary is too powerful

(B) Lack of Formal Constitution

• Uncertainty in constitutional hierarchy

(C) Political Conflict

• Judicial decisions often politically sensitive

(D) Judicial Overreach Claims

• Especially in security-related cases

8. Comparative Perspective

9. Conclusion

The constitutional review system of Israel, developed through Basic Laws and interpreted by the Supreme Court of Israel, represents a unique global model of judicially constructed constitutionalism.

It demonstrates that:

• A constitution can evolve without formal codification
• Courts can play a central role in protecting rights
• Even security-driven states can adopt proportionality-based rights review

Overall, Israel’s system stands as a hybrid model between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy, shaped heavily by judicial interpretation.