Comparative Law in Australian Constitutional Jurisprudence

By Aroney, Nicholas | University of Queensland Law Journal, December 2007 | Go to article overview

Comparative Law in Australian Constitutional Jurisprudence


Aroney, Nicholas, University of Queensland Law Journal


I INTRODUCTION

Comparative constitutional law is a complex, multi-faceted and contested undertaking. The very possibility of meaningful comparison is sometimes doubted and its legitimacy is often contested. Even among those who support its use, there is disagreement as to its rationale and method. In some countries its use is disputed; in others its use is taken for granted but the manner of its use is contested; in still others its use is widespread but largely unexamined.

Australia falls principally into the latter category. Comparative law is frequently used in Australian constitutional law, and its use is not especially controversial, but close analyses of its use are rare. General comparisons between the constitutions and constitutional law of Australia and other countries have certainly been undertaken (1) and specific issues have been examined in comparative perspective. (2) Sometimes the particular use to which comparative constitutional law is put has been criticised. (3) But the way in which comparative constitutional law is used in Australia has rarely been examined. (4) More controversial, and more often discussed, has been the use of international law, especially the law of international human rights, in Australian law. (5)

The reason why the use of comparative law in Australian constitutional jurisprudence has not been particularly controversial and rarely examined--in the context of controversy and passionate disagreement elsewhere--no doubt has to do with Australian conceptions of our place in the world and the unique way in which these conceptions filter into the attitudes and practices of Australian lawyers, judges and elected representatives. And yet, the Australian experience--perhaps like the experience of other countries within the British Commonwealth--is especially instructive, not least because the stated reasons why comparative jurisprudence has been readily admitted in Australia are surprisingly diverse. For instance, the High Court of Australia has appealed to the universal applicability of certain fundamental constitutional principles, the existence of functional equivalents in other constitutional systems, similarities of constitutional text and structure, the capacity of comparative constitutional law to furnish critical insights into Australian law, the rule (in the past) that the decisions of superior courts within the imperial hierarchy are authoritative precedents and, finally, the belief that the use of certain comparative materials is actually consistent with the intentions and expectations of the framers of the Constitution.

When placed into the context of debates in other countries concerning the use of comparative constitutional law, this is not only a diverse list, but an apparently self-contradictory one. Who would have thought, for example, that an argument from universal constitutional principles could stand alongside of--indeed, be articulated in the very same case as--an argument from the expectations of the framers? (6)

In this article, I seek to explore the use of comparative constitutional law in Australia, understood itself in comparative perspective. It is sometimes pointed out that the Australian High Court is open to comparative constitutional jurisprudence to an extent much greater than the United States Supreme Court. (7) This is true, but it is so for particular reasons which do not necessarily reflect the degree to which there is openness, in principle, to comparative law in each country. Rather, I argue, it has more to do with the context in which the two Constitutions came into being and have continued to operate. As noted, the grounds upon which the use of comparative constitutional law in Australia has been defended are diverse. Some of these grounds are certainly controversial when judges appeal to them in the United States, but these very same grounds have been controversial when used in Australia as well. When we compare the use of comparative constitutional law from one country to another we need, in other words, to take account of the context of each constitutional system. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Comparative Law in Australian Constitutional Jurisprudence
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.