Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Treaty Enforcement in Domestic Courts: A Comparative Analysis
- 2 Does International Law Obligate States to Open Their National Courts to Persons for the Invocation of Treaty Norms That Protect or Benefit Persons?
- 3 Australia
- 4 Canada
- 5 Germany
- 6 India
- 7 Israel
- 8 The Netherlands
- 9 Poland
- 10 Russian Federation
- 11 South Africa
- 12 United Kingdom
- 13 United States
- 14 The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: Summary and Conclusions
- Index
- References
3 - Australia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2010
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Treaty Enforcement in Domestic Courts: A Comparative Analysis
- 2 Does International Law Obligate States to Open Their National Courts to Persons for the Invocation of Treaty Norms That Protect or Benefit Persons?
- 3 Australia
- 4 Canada
- 5 Germany
- 6 India
- 7 Israel
- 8 The Netherlands
- 9 Poland
- 10 Russian Federation
- 11 South Africa
- 12 United Kingdom
- 13 United States
- 14 The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: Summary and Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The Commonwealth of Australia emerged as a federation of six states on January 1, 1901, formed under a constitution adopted by the Parliament at Westminster after extensive Australian debate and consultation during the preceding decade. Australia emerged as a new state in the then-international system very much under the umbrella of Britain and, just like the other emerging British colonies of Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, took some time to find a truly independent voice in international affairs. Indeed, it was not until the First World War and the conduct of significant military campaigns on European battlefields that Australia began to develop a stance approaching that of an independent state in international affairs. The Paris Peace Conference permitted Australia to take its place on the world diplomatic stage and, in the years between the First and the Second World Wars, a more independent Australia began to emerge. Various Empire Conferences gave greater voice to the British Dominions as a constitutional matter, culminating in the 1931 Statute of Westminster that recognized the true independence of the Dominions and their ability to play a role in international affairs, including the adoption of treaties. However, there was an ongoing reluctance on the part of Australia to take the final step onto the international stage and the Statute of Westminster was not adopted during the 1930s.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty EnforcementA Comparative Study, pp. 120 - 165Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, “The High Court and the External Affairs Power: A Consideration of Its Outer and Inner Limits” (1993) 15 Adelaide L. Rev.209–40Google Scholar
, “The External Affairs Power and Constitutional Reform” (1988) 62 Australian L.J.679–89Google Scholar
, “Articles of Faith or Lucky Breaks? The Constitutional Law of International Agreements in Australia” (1995) 17 Sydney L.R.150, at 150Google Scholar
, “External Affairs and Treaties: The Founding Fathers' Perspective” (1990) 16 Univ. Queensland L.J.123, at 123Google Scholar
, “International Agreements and the Australian Treaty Power” (1968–69) Australian Y.B. Int'l L.83–101Google Scholar
and , “The Place of Customary International Law in Australian Law: Unfinished Business” (2001) 21; Austrl. Y.B. Int'l L.39–53Google Scholar
, “The External Affairs Power and Constitutional Reform” (1988) 62 Australian L.J.679 at 681Google Scholar
, “Execution of Treaties by Legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia” (1955) 2 Univ. Queensland L.J.297 at 299Google Scholar
and , “The Right to Strike in Australia: International Treaty Obligations and the External Affairs Power” (2001) 1 Melbourne J. Int'l L.162–68Google Scholar
, “Sexuality and Human Rights: The First Communication by an Australian to the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (1993) 14 Austrl. Y.B. Int'l L.277–92Google Scholar
, “Quasi-Incorporation of International Law in Australia: Broadcasting Standards, Cultural Sovereignty and International Trade” (1999) 27 Fed. L. Rev.527–45Google Scholar
and , “Australia's Identity Crisis: The Cost of Closer International Relations” (1996) 15 (4) Communications L. Bull.26–27Google Scholar
“[r]equires the ABA to perform its functions in a manner consistent with various matters, including Australia's international obligations or agreements such as Closer Economic Relations with New Zealand.” Project Blue Sky (1998) 153 ALR 490 at 512
, “Waiver by Agencies of Government of Statutory Procedural Requirements” (1998) 21 UNSW L.J.711 at 716–17Google Scholar
“Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Holden Cars? The Arts and Cultural Implications of Project Blue Sky v. Australian Broadcasting Authority” (1998) 3 Media & Arts L. Rev.135Google Scholar
, “True Blue v. Blue Sky: Australian Content Standards in Doubt” (1998) 17 Communications L. Bull.1–2Google Scholar
, “The Status of Treaties in Australian Municipal Law: The Principle of Walker v. Baird Reconsidered” (1989–90) 12 Adelaide L. Rev.367 at 367Google Scholar
, “Human Rights in the High Court of Australia, 1976–2003: The Righting of Australian Law?” (2005) 33 Fed. L. Rev.287Google Scholar
, “Unincorporated Treaties in Australian Law: The Official Response to the Teoh Decision” (1997) 71 Austrl. L.J.503Google Scholar
“In the Wake of Teoh: Finding An Appropriate Government Response” (2001) 29 Federal Law Review219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “International Law as a Tool of Constitutional Interpretation” (2002) 28 Monash Univ. L. Rev.85 at 91Google Scholar
, , and , “Australian Cases before Australian Courts and Tribunals Involving Questions of Public International Law 2004” (2006) 25 Austrl. Y.B. Int'l L.377 at 384–86Google Scholar
, “‘Do the Right Thing’ Judging? The High Court of Australia in Al-Kateb” (2005) 24 Univ. Queensland L.J.1–34Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 1
- Cited by