Our ancestors, what was no longer is what will be. But the "global village" is not just a technological concept that expands the range of possibilities for communication and movement, and its essence is indisputable; In my view, it is also a concept of values, even if its pendulum has not yet found rest and there are also ambiguities, not to mention distortions, in the international criminal justice system, for example (and not only) in attempts to apply "universal justice" where it is unjustified, and this is not the place to elaborate. But our matter clearly falls into the category in which the law will be interpreted according to what is appropriate, which in this case is also the most effective. Globalization therefore includes questions of terrorism on the one hand and economics on the other, along with environmental issues and many other issues, and the law often lags behind the new technology and must infect itself substantially and morally. See On Justice Technologies and Law: Law, Science, and Society [129] and the various topics discussed there.
- (1) I must address the issue of reciprocity a little: in the old days, from the moment it was corrected The Extradition Law In the framework of the Foreign Offenses Amendment Law, 5738-1978, a substantial and embarrassing gap has been created that has persisted for more than two decades between Israel's obligations under the extradition treaty with the United States.-1962 (which came into effect in-1963) and the provisions of the Extradition Law. According to the Convention, Israel is obligated to extradite its citizens under the conditions set forth in the Convention; See Article 1 of the Convention: "Each of the Parties to the Convention agrees... on the mutual extradition of persons who are in the territory of the other party and who have been accused or convicted of an offense... that was passed within the territorial jurisdiction of the other party..."; and Article 4 of the Convention, which states: "A requested party shall not refuse to extradite a wanted person because he is a citizen of the other party." However, the amended law of 1978 stipulated (In Section 1A, entitled "Exception to the Extradition of Civilians") that "an Israeli citizen shall not be extradited except for an offense he committed before he became an Israeli citizen." However, the breaking of this provision comes with it, i.e., it was determined In Section 4A The Penal Law Law (Foreign Offenses) [Consolidated Version], 5733-1973 states that "the courts in Israel are authorized to adjudicate under the laws of Israel an Israeli citizen or resident of Israel who has committed an act abroad which, had it been committed in Israel, would have been an offense that would be one of the offenses in the Addendum to the Extradition Law, 5714-1954" under the prescribed conditions. Indeed, in the explanatory notes to the bill to amend the laws of foreign offenses, 5737-1977, it is stated that in the minority of extradition treaties in the world (2007-5% There are no restrictions on the extradition of citizens of the requested state, and in the rest there are such restrictions. Therefore, it was proposed to prevent the extradition of citizens on one hand, and from the other to add the authority of Israeli courts to try citizens for offenses committed outside the country, "... This is in order to prevent the country from becoming a city of refuge for criminals." There is no denying that there was a historic position behind the amendment-An idea that has been especially associated over the years with the name of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which is connected to the history of the Jewish people and the persecution that was persecuted. However,