The territorial connection is therefore the first in the hierarchy, and its application is primary. It is followed by the rest of the connections in a hierarchical order, and each one has a residual application in relation to the previous one (see also Feller Foundations in Penal Law [127], at p. 246). Regarding the significance of the hierarchy of affinities, Prof. Feller adds:
"The same hierarchy of values is also expressed in the fact that the applicability, with its various types, is of a fundamental nature on the one hand, or residual (subsidized), on the other, in terms of the choice of law, i.e., between the law of the state and the foreign law" (ibid.).
The hierarchy of affiliations is partially expressed in the Penal Law following Amendment 39. Thus, in section 14(b) of the law, which enshrines the applicability of criminal law by virtue of a passive personal connection, it was determined that Israeli law will be withdrawn where the offense was committed in the territory of a foreign state, and it is not an offense under its laws or its laws qualify criminal liability for it, or that the foreign legal system has already exhausted its power - by virtue of the territorial connection - to prosecute the defendant and he is acquitted or convicted and sentenced to death. Sections 15(b) and 16 of the Penal Law apply a similar hierarchy between an active personal connection or a universal connection under Israeli law and the relationship of foreign law.
But here, as Prof. Feller himself points out, the hierarchical hierarchy relates only to the choice of law, and it has nothing to do with deciding between competing legal systems for applicability. This means that where the laws of a foreign country dictate that an act committed in its territory does not constitute an offense, Israeli criminal law will no longer be able to apply itself to this act by virtue of ties which, by their nature, are inferior to the territorial affiliation of the foreign state. This is also the case where the foreign state has exhausted the defendant's accountability. In fact, the application of the hierarchy does not lead to a decision in the competition between legal systems, but rather makes competition redundant in the first place. However, where it is valid and exists, where the question of the decision is in place, for example, when all the conditions set forth in section 14(b) are fulfilled, or when the legal systems involved fail to properly anchor the hierarchy of connections in their internal law (see Feller, Foundations of Penal Law [127], at p. 247).