Q&A: The Authority of State Laws Outside Its Borders
The Authority of State Laws Outside Its Borders
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Do you think the laws of the state have binding force outside the state’s borders? For example, I saw a section in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance that says this:
Offenses committed abroad
38. (a) An Israeli citizen or Israeli resident who does outside Israel an act which, if done in Israel, would be an offense under this Ordinance—he is regarded as though he committed the offense in Israel.
(b) A person who is neither an Israeli citizen nor an Israeli resident, who does outside Israel an act which, if done in Israel, would be an offense under the provisions of section 6 or Part B of Chapter C, or an offense of possession of a dangerous drug under section 7—he is regarded as though he committed the offense in Israel.
(c) A person shall not be prosecuted by virtue of subsection (b) if the act was done in a place under the jurisdiction of a foreign state, unless the act is also prohibited by the law of the place where it was done.
(d) An indictment under this section shall be filed only by the Attorney General or with his written consent.
(e) No indictment under this section shall be filed against a person for an act for which he was convicted or acquitted outside Israel.
So according to this, is an Israeli citizen who smokes marijuana in a country where it is legal doing something immoral? (Violating the laws of his own state).
Answer
Good question. Seemingly, the law should not depend on territory but on people. Whoever belongs to a community is bound by its laws, regardless of where he is located. It is interesting that in Jewish law, the rule of “the law of the kingdom is the law” is usually based on the king’s ownership of the land, but today I do not think that is the right conception.
On the other hand, I think it is hard to accept, in a democratic framework, an attempt to impose behavior on me when I am not within the state’s territory. It is possible that such a law is unconstitutional (in my view, even if it would survive review by the High Court of Justice). It is similar to a law that determines what I am allowed or forbidden to do in my own home on a personal level. But then one should also discuss the prohibition against smoking drugs in my home in Israel. If the smoker does not become a burden on the public (require treatment) and harms no one, I think there is no obligation to obey such a law. And indeed, it is also not enforced against a private smoker (only against a dealer).
What bothered me more in the past was the law passed not long ago according to which rabbinical courts have authority over every Jewish couple, even those who are not residents of Israel. They applied this to a French couple who were not Israeli citizens, where the husband was refusing to give a get. When he arrived in Israel, he was arrested in order to force him to give a get. In my view, that is simply unbelievable on the legal level.
Discussion on Answer
“When he arrived in Israel, he was arrested in order to force him to give a get.” When he is in the country, he is bound by the laws of the state (which require him to give a get if that is what the religious court rules), so what is the legal surprise? If he owed money to Yossi, when he came to Israel, Yossi could apply to the enforcement office in Israel. No?
The surprise is that both he and his wife are only French citizens. The correct analogy is a French citizen who stole from another French citizen.
More precisely, that he fed pork to another French citizen.
Morality is a subtler question. In the case of a dealer, there is concern that he will sell to people who do not have full judgment.
According to what you wrote, does the dealer himself also not commit a moral offense? After all, he does not become a burden on the public and does not harm anyone.