Startseite Whose law is it anyway? The case of matrimonial property in Israel
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Whose law is it anyway? The case of matrimonial property in Israel

  • Sharon Shakargy
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 1. Februar 2022
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Aus der Zeitschrift Theoretical Inquiries in Law Band 23 Heft 1

Abstract

It is often argued that courts avoid foreign laws because they prefer local law. It would make sense if they did—after all, foreign law can be hard to understand and complicated to employ, and it is also . . . foreign. Aiming to investigate this assumption through a qualitative analysis of all available cases on one question and comparing the findings with the approach towards local matrimonial property cases in Israel, this Article finds something rather different. At least as regards Israeli judges discussing matrimonial property, it appears that sometimes judges do not prefer the lex fori but something else. The Article discusses one case that reveals what could be described as a judicial mutiny, where judges chose to apply neither foreign law nor local law per se. In the case of matrimonial property, a particular legal norm seems particularly close to the judges’ hearts. So much so that despite legislative intervention designed to change the judicially-shaped law, the courts continue to apply their own, judicially created law.

* Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I thank Celia Fassberg for her patient reading and smart comments, as always; Keren Weinshall and Daphna Hacker for their helpful advice regarding the empirical work; the participants of the Global Law Market conference at Tel Aviv University and the private law workshop at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for their helpful comments; and Tsila Horowitz for research assistance. I also thank the TIL editorial board for their comments and suggestions. The research was supported by the Aharon Barak Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, as well as Israel Science Foundation grant no. 835/2018. Cite as: Sharon Shakargy, Whose Law is it Anyway? The Case of Matrimonial Property in Israel, 23 Theoretical Inquiries L. 165 (2022).

Appendix I – Corpus of Cases

Supreme Court (appeal)

1. CivA 291/85 Awalid v. Awalid PD 52(1) 215 (1988)

2. CivA 7687/04 Sasson v. Sasson, PD 59(5) 596 (2005)

District Court (appeal)

3. FamA (DC Hi) 2290-04-10 ML v. YL (27.12.10)

4. FamA (DC TA) 51311-12-11 John Doe v. Jane Doe (12.11.2013)

5. LFamA (DC BS) 43199-10-17 YGP v. AAP (27.11.2017)

6. FamA (DC TA) 1971-12-16 John Doe v. Jane Doe (6.1.2019)

7. FamA (DC Hi) 37676-05-18 LP v. MP (14.3.19)

8. LFamA (DC TA) 12248-04-19 AG v. YG (11.7.2019)

District Court (first instance)

9. Case (DC Jer) 322/92 Dweik v. Dweik PSM 1993(2) 423 (1993)

10. Case (DC Jer) 355/95 Kord v. Kord PSM 1996(2) 464 (1996)

Family Court (first instance)

11. FamC (TA) 23990/01 AH v. LB, Nevo Legal Database (May 20, 2002)

12. FamC (TA) 44900/00 PL v. DV, Nevo Legal Database (Apr. 14, 2003)

13. FamC (TA) 47300/96 SS v. The Estate of the Late SS, Nevo Legal Database (July 6, 2003);

14. FamC (Jer) 10621/05 MY v. MA (30.7.2007)

15. FamC (Jer) 4460/05 John Doe v. Jane Doe (5.5.2008)

16. FamC (TA) 1210/07 John Doe v. Jane Doe (2.11.2011)

17. FamC (Tiberius) 860-09-09 SA v. MA (8.5.2012)

18. FamC (Nz) 18572-11-10 BA v. HA (28.8.2012)

19. FamC (Jer) 10982/05 MA v. AKB (6.1.2013)

20. FamC (TA) 8291-03-13 YA v. AFA (17.8.2014)

21. FamC (Ashdod) 37846-04-13 MB v. PB (26.4.15)

22. FamC (TA) 2990/07 Jane Doe v. John Doe (30.4.2015)

23. FamC (Jer) 13270/06 TL v. TZ (30.10.2008)

24. FamC (Jer) 63862-09-14 NC v. AC (13.6.2016)

25. Case (Jer) 32295-11-15 LB v. BB (6.9.16)

26. FamC (TA) 10521-03-15 Jane Doe v. John Doe (10.10.2016)

27. Case (Jer) 20944-12-16 TS v. AS (4.7.2018)

Grand Rabbinical Court (appeal)

28. Case (Grand Rabbinical Court) 1132751 John Doe v. Jane Doe (18.5.2018)

Rabbinical Courts (first instance)

29. Case (Netanya) 9199 John Doe v. Jane Doe (18.12.2007)

30. Case (Netanya) 844861 John Doe v. Jane Doe (31.10.2011)

CivA – Civil Appeal

FamA – Family Appeal

FamC – Family Case

LFamA – Family Leave to Appeal

Appendix II – Analysis of Cases
Case # Initiator Choice of Law Rule Used Outcome for Initiator Foreign Law Applied? Agreement? Outcome Upholds Agreement? Sharing? Competing Foreign Law Content of Competing Regime (foreign law or agreement) According to the Court
1 W Sec. 15 L Y Y Y N France Separation
2 H Nafisi L N Y N Y Netherlands Separation
3 W Sec. 15 L Y N - N Canada Separation
4 H Nafisi W N N - Y South Africa Community
5 H Nafisi L N Y N Y France Separation
6 W(&H) Sec. 15 W Y Y ? Y France? Separation
7 W Nafisi (Sec. 15 also considered) L N N - N USA/ Dominican Republic Separation
8 H ~Nafisi W N N - Y South Africa Separation
9 W Nafisi W N N - Y Jordan Separation
10 W Nafisi W N N - Y East Jerusalem Jordan - Separation
11 H Sec. 15 L Y Y Y Y France Separation
12 W Nafisi (partly) W N N - Y Ukraine ?
13 W Nafisi (partly) W N N - Y Iran Separation
14 W(&H) Sec. 15 L Y Y Y N (California) USA Separation
15 H Sec. 15 W N (debated) N -(N) Y France Separation
16 H Nafisi (partly) H ~Y (inferred) N - (Y) Y South Africa Community
17 W Nafisi (partly) W N N - Y Palestinian Authority Separation
18 W Nafisi ? ?** ? ? ?* ? Separation
19 H Sec. 15 L N Y Y N Mexico Separation
20 W Sec. 15 ? -* N - ? USA ?
21 W Sec. 15 L Y Y Y N France Separation
22 W Sec. 15 W Y N - Y France Community
23 W Nafisi W N N - Y UK ?
24 W Nafisi W N N - Y East Jerusalem Jordan - Separation
25 W Sec. 15 W ~Y Y Y Y USA Community
26 W(&H) Sec. 15 (partly) W Y Y ~Y Y France Separation
27 H Nafisi (partly) W N N - Y Ethiopia ?
28 W Sec. 15 L Y* N - N USA ?
29 H Nafisi (partly) W ~Y Y ~Y N South Africa Separation
30 H Sec. 15 L Y* N - ?* USA ?

  1. * Preliminary decision, no law was actually applied/property actually divided.

    ** Preliminary decision, no law was actually applied but the court mentioned that the applicable law might be Israeli.

    H = Husband

    W = Wife

    Y = Yes

    N = No
Published Online: 2022-02-01
Published in Print: 2022-02-23

© 2022 by Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Delaware’s copycat: Can delaware corporate law be emulated?
  4. The unexpected effects of israeli courts’ approach to dual-listed companies
  5. Access to evidence in private international law
  6. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in American courts and the limits of the law market model
  7. Enforcement of foreign judgments, systemic calibration, and the global law market
  8. Whose law is it anyway? The case of matrimonial property in Israel
  9. The puzzle and persistence of biglaw clustering
  10. The transformation of the art market: Law, norms, and institutions
https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2022-0007

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Delaware’s copycat: Can delaware corporate law be emulated?
  4. The unexpected effects of israeli courts’ approach to dual-listed companies
  5. Access to evidence in private international law
  6. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in American courts and the limits of the law market model
  7. Enforcement of foreign judgments, systemic calibration, and the global law market
  8. Whose law is it anyway? The case of matrimonial property in Israel
  9. The puzzle and persistence of biglaw clustering
  10. The transformation of the art market: Law, norms, and institutions
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 26.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/til-2022-0007/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen