מתואמים או משלימים? דיני הנזיקין והפסיקה בבג"ץ

It has long been observed that the Supreme Court often adjusts itsadjudication in civil matters, particularly in torts, in an effort to alignit with the Court’s jurisprudence in constitutional andadministrative matters. This paper demonstrates, however, that thisinteraction between the two legal domains is in fact more complex thanpreviously supposed. Important policy decisions in torts are aconsequence not of what the Court does in the constitutional-administrativedomain, but rather of what the Court cannot do. Although the Court mayview a petition favorably, it may nevertheless determine that it cannotextend a constitutional remedy. In such cases, it may turn to tort law as analternative means to address the petitioner’s hardship. Policy of this sort isnot “coordinated” with the Court’s constitutional-administrativejurisprudence, but rather “complements” it. We demonstrate this patternby examining the Court’s adjudication in five primary categories: lawsuitsagainst the military; divorce recalcitrance; cases concerning the Arabminority’s right to equality; freedom of speech and the rights of personswith disabilities.I