Benjamin Akzin is distinguished by a unique combination of qualities, qualifications and experiences—on the basis of which he has made and continues to make unusual contributions both to scientific knowledge and to murky political realities.

A short resumé of his career may give some indication of its wide scope and variety. But no such list can do justice to a man of Professor Akzin's stature whose personality has so many facets. He has lived for extended periods in a number of countries, including Israel, Poland, France, Austria, England and the United States. He studied at the University of Vienna, the Sorbonne and Harvard University, receiving three doctorates in law and political science. He has combined an academic life with a life of active politics. His political activities have included serving as Foreign Secretary of the Revisionist movement under Jabotinsky, and in senior professional staff positions, such as in the service of the United States Congress, political functions in the Zionist movement, both in Washington and New York. His academic positions range from being an assistant to Hans Kelsen, to building up the Faculty of Law and the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University, as Dean and Department Head of these faculties respectively, and Haifa University, as its President.

The study of labour law in Israel need not start before the occupation of Palestine by the British at the end of the First World War. The inheritance left to the British by the collapsing Ottoman Empire in many fields of law, and especially in labour law, was meagre and primitive. As a matter of fact, the Ottoman system did not even acknowledge the existence of labour law as such. Only a few provisions concerning labour could be found on the statute book, intermingled with provisions regulating the hire of chattels and animals.

During the Mandatory period, the British took it upon themselves to modernise local law. This, indeed, they accomplished in many fields of law. But labour law remained an exception. In this field they preferred to do as little as possible. This may be largely explained by their unwillingness to disturb the social and economic order which had prevailed in Arab society for centuries. Thus, the few labour laws enacted by the British up to the Second World War set very minimal standards. For example, the Women and Children (Industrial Employment) Ordinance of 1927 prohibited the employment of children under twelve years; but even this prohibition applied only to factories and workshops, and not to agriculture and other trades.

One of the main driving forces of man is fear, and its very paralyzing effect has, in the solution of human conflicts, been sought as method for both attack and defence. No wonder then that Montesquieu recognized fear as the principle of the despotic type of government; while organized terror as practised nowadays on a wide scale has become an instrument for undermining the authority of established government.

Its origin can be traced to Anarchism, that frightful episode in “the war between two divisions of society,… the world of privilege and the world of protest…, the last cry of individual man,… the last fist shaken against the encroaching State”. But organization in every form was so repellent to the 19th century anarchists that they were incapable of drawing together, even for the sake of concerted action.

Foreign policy decisions constitute a main dimension of governmental activities from early history. Their significance for society varies with the acceptance of different ideological commitments in respect to external national goals, with changes in degrees of interdependence between nations and with transformations of the capacity to influence interaction with other countries through nationally controlled and goal-oriented activities. Changes in international scenery, in accepted values, in technology and in internal political structures are among the variables which illustrate factors that influence the significance of foreign policy decisions, and — even more so — their contents and role.

Looking at contemporary foreign policy decisions, we gain the impression that, for most European countries, the significance of such decisions is decreasing, with priority going to the domains of economics, quality of life and internal politics. But this is an illusion caused by too conservative and narrow a conception of “foreign policy decisions”. True, in many European countries the traditional main concerns of foreign policy decisions, such as defence matters, are regarded as decreasing in importance within the given situation. This may be correct at present, as far as it goes. But to deduce from so singular and narrow a phenomenon any general conclusions in respect of the diminishing significance of foreign policy decisions is, it is submitted, a serious mistake.

The strait of Bab al-Mandeb, “the gate of tears” or “the gate of the wailing yard”, joins the high seas of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean to those of the Red Sea. The name is primarily used by geographers to designate the narrowest part of the passage, between Ras Bab al-Mandeb on the Asian shore and Ras Siyan in Africa. At this point it is bordered on the east by the Yemen Arab Republic (Northern Yemen) and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (Southern Yemen), and in the west by the Republic of Djibouti (formerly the French Territory of the Afars and Issas). About 14 miles farther north, where the Red Sea (or, for that matter, the strait) is nearly 20 miles wide, lies the coast of Ethiopia (the province of Eritrea). All the riparians claim a territorial sea of 12 miles, and the Yemen Arab Republic, as well as the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, also claim jurisdiction for certain purposes in an additional zone of 6 miles.

On the eastern shore of the strait of Bab al-Mandeb lies the peninsula of Ras Bab al-Mandeb, which is about 6–10 km. wide. It consists of rocky, volcanic plains with several hills of 200–300 m. The coast of Ras Bab al-Mandeb is surrounded by coral reefs of a width of up to 1500 m. The border between North Yemen and South Yemen passes down the middle of Ras Bab al-Mandeb.

International terrorism and traffic in narcotic drugs would seem at first sight to represent two categories of offences that ought to be kept apart in a discussion concerning the problems of extradition in respect of them. The prima facie approach of differentiating, for extradition purposes, between international terrorism, on the one hand, and traffic in narcotic drugs, on the other hand, would appear to be warranted by the different perception of these two groups of offences prevailing in the mind of the general public. While crimes of international terrorism are perceived as being normally inspired by political motives, traffic in narcotic drugs is generally believed to be motivated solely by the prospects of quick enrichment. Since extradition treaties almost invariably exclude political crimes from their scope of application, the distinction, for extradition purposes, between terrorism and drug crimes is not far to seek.

However, these different perceptions of the two categories of crimes are somewhat deceptive, and more apparent than real, and the differences between them are, at most, differences of degree rather than of substance.

In his case note on the famous Bergmann decision of the Supreme Court, Professor Akzin wrote:

These remarks probably express the most original view ever put forward on this land mark case. They emphasize the crux of the complex constitutional problem discussed in the Bergmann case, i.e., the definition of the legal nature of the basic laws in the legal order of Israel. The extremely abstract questions involved in that discussion, indeed, the most abstract that exist in public law, concern the definition of the nature of the power which adopts the Constitution and more specifically, of the power which amends the Constitution.

Bill No. 1306 of 25 July 1977 would amend the Extradition Law of 1954 so as to preclude entirely the possibility of extraditing to foreign States any nationals of Israel. Sec. 1 of the Extradition Law would be replaced by the following section: “A person who is in Israel may only be extradited to another State if he is not an Israeli national and only in accordance with this Law”. A (majority) report of a committee established by the Minister of Justice and chaired by Judge Nathan proposed in October 1976 to amend the Extradition Law so that in the future Israeli nationals would be extradited only to States which extradite their nationals to Israel. The Committee proposed also that Israeli courts be granted jurisdiction to try, under Israeli law, Israeli nationals who have committed abroad offences covered by the Extradition Law. A minority recommendation submitted by Judge Nathan proposed that a total prohibition be imposed on the extradition of Israeli nationals. The Government Bill is based on the recommendation of Judge Nathan. The object of this article is to consider some of the questions to which this Bill gives rise.

Israel's press plays a distinctive role in the country's political structure. Comprised of 27 dailies and 135 magazines, some with distinctive partisan affiliation and others committed to political neutrality, it has wide circulation and enjoys considerable political influence.

Israeli newspapers were not always as independent as they are today. During the struggle for liberation, the press placed itself at the disposal of the Yishuv (Jewish community) leadership, to be used as a political tool for promoting the objectives of the Jewish population in Palestine. Only in the fifties, after the establishment of the sovereign state of Israel, did the press begin to develop consciousness of its distinct and autonomous role in the political process.

Several institutions founded by the press itself have moulded it into a politically viable establishment: the Editors' Committee, the Press Council, the National Union of Journalists and the Union of the Daily Papers. The Editors' Committee is the most powerful and long standing of the four. Organised in 1948 by the chief editors of the Hebrew dailies, it functions as an intermediary between the Government and the public in matters concerning important policy decisions.