The Knesset Constitution Committee will discuss today (Tuesday) the Courts Bill (Mandatory Arbitration) in preparation for its second-third readings. According to this proposed bill, the president or deputy of a Magistrate Court could forward civil lawsuits to an arbitration process by a private lawyer without needing permission from the parties to the case.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) is opposed to this bill, as is Supreme Court President, Justice Asher Grunis, and many other retired justices and senior jurists. Also right-wing “Ma’ariv” newspaper states that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and states that “indeed, it would seem that in this instance, the intentions of Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman are good. The workload of the average judge in Israel is twice that of a judge in a Western country. But the ‘obligatory arbitration’ bill raises profound questions, first of which are the boundaries of privatization. Sometimes it seems that the first solution presented to every over-burdened or inefficient public service is privatization. This must be the last resort, certainly when regarding significant administrative authority such as the judiciary.”
In a position paper prepared by ACRI Attorney Anne Suciu for Van Leer Institute’s Center for Social Justice and Democracy she warns: “This bill would lead to the de facto privatization of the Israeli legal system on an unprecedented scale and would severely damage the existence of an independent judicial system. While judges in Israel undergo a strict selection process and are bound by a long list of restrictions intended to ensure their impartiality, the main condition for appointing lawyers as arbitrators is a seven-year seniority.”
A comparative review of other countries around the world shows that even in countries where cases are forwarded to arbitration, the parties to the case maintain the right to access the public legal system. In fact, growing criticism of the arbitration process in some countries led to legislative initiatives that seek to protect the weaker parties in the arbitration process.
According to Attorney Suciu, “Years of under-funding led to an unbearable burden on the court system. Instead of solving this problem by amending the system, many decision-makers blindly accept the view that privatization is the desired solution for almost every public service that is not properly functioning. The Mandatory Arbitration Bill is an extreme initiative that has no equivalent anywhere in the world, and it could violate the basic right to a due process.”
