Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
International law, as expressed in treaties and in customary law, is of growing importance in municipal jurisdictions throughout the world. Some barriers to the use of international law in national courts are identified. Occasionally, they include scepticism and even hostility about this body of law. However, the past 60 years have witnessed a remarkable change in judicial attitudes in final courts in most Commonwealth countries.
In the UK, the impact of Europe has helped create an ‘incoming tide’. In South Africa, India and Canada, constitutional provisions have stimulated the change. New Zealand is now affected by its Bill of Rights Act. But, in Australia, none of these forces was available and decisional authority adhered for decades to strict dualism.
The changing pace of utilisation of international law in the UK and Australia are described. In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 now consolidates a trend already happening in the courts. In Australia, the Mabo decision in 1992 effectively endorsed the Bangalore Principles on the municipal application of international human rights norms. This paper describes the contrasting case-law. In the foregoing countries, it concludes with a response to criticisms of judicial utilisation of international law and a suggestion of the proper jurisprudential basis that can be identified to sustain a judicial process that is now well advanced in the countries surveyed.
1. (1992) 175 CLR 1.
2. HP Bulmer Ltd v J Bollinger SA [1974] Ch 401 at 418.
3. See, eg, Bingham, TH “There is a world elsewhere”: the changing perspectives of English law’ (1992) 41 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 513 at 519ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. See Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT); Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Consultations recommending the enactment of human rights legislation have also been conducted in two other States: Tasmania Law Reform Institute A Charter of Rights for Tasmania (Report No 10, 2007); Government of Western Australia A WA Human Rights Act: Report of the Consultation Committee (2007).
5. (1949) 77 CLR 449. See Sir Mason, Anthony The influence of international and transnational law on Australian municipal law’ (1996) 7 Public Law Review 20 at 24.Google Scholar
6. Some notable exceptions where customary international law has been discussed include Nulyarimma v Thompson (1999) 96 FCR 153; Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 per Brennan and Toohey JJ.
7. Donaghue, S ‘Balancing sovereignty and international law: the domestic impact of international law in Australia’ (1995) 17 Adelaide Law Review 213 at 263Google Scholar; Mathew, P ‘International law and the protection of human rights in Australia: recent trends’ (1995) 17 Sydney Law Review 177 at 194.Google Scholar
8. Buvot v Barbuit (1737) Cas Temp Talbot 281; Triquet v Bath (1764) 3 Burr 1478; R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63; West Rand Central Gold Mining Co Ltd v The King [1905] 2 KB 391; Chung Chi Cheung v The King [1939] AC 160; Thakar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1974] QB 684; Trendtex Trading Co v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529; Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v International Tin Council (No 2) [1989] 1 Ch 286.
9. See, eg, Shaw, MN International Law (Cambridge University Press, 5th edn, 2003) p 129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlie, I Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2003) p 44 Google Scholar; Triggs, GD International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices (2006) p 135 Google Scholar; Wallace, Rmm International Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 5th edn, 2005) p 40 Google Scholar; Hunt, M Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Hart, Publishing, 1997) p 11.Google Scholar
10. With respect to the UK, see, eg, Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751 at 771 per Lord Diplock; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] AC 696 at 747–748 per Lord Bridge of Harwich, at 760 per Lord Ackner.
11. (1908) 6 CLR 309. See also Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 at 287 per Mason CJ and Deane J; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2002) 211 CLR 476 at 492 per Gleeson CJ.
12. (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 363.
13. Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513 at 657–661; Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 at 417–418; Re East, ex p Nguyen (1998) 196 CLR 354 at 380–381; Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185 at 293.
14. AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 at 180 per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 at 589 per McHugh J.
15. See, eg, the use of international law in Ministry of Transport v Noort; Police v Curran [1992] 3 NZLR 260; Tavita v Minister of Immigration [1994] 2 NZLR 257.
16. Kindred, HM The use and abuse of international legal sources by Canadian courts: searching for a principled approach’ in Fitzgerald, OE (ed) The Globalized Rule of Law: Relationships between International and Domestic Law (Irwin Law Inc, 2006) p 5 at p 17.Google Scholar
17. [1999] 2 SCR 817.
18. Kindred, above n 16, p 17.
19. See generally ibid.
20. Armand de Mestral and Evan Fox-Decent ‘Implementation and reception: the congeniality of Canada's legal order to international law’ in Fitzgerald, above n 16, p 35. See also below.
21. Donaghue, above n 7, at 214.
22. For a discussion of the two concepts, see Trendtex, above n 8, at 553 per Lord Denning MR.
23. See, eg, the discussions in Shaw, above n 9, pp 128ff; Brownlie, above n 9, pp 41ff; Triggs, above n 9 pp 131ff; Wallace, above n 9, pp 40ff; Collier, JG ‘Is international law really part of the law of England?’ (1989) 38 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 924CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Connell, DP ‘The relationship between international law and municipal law’ (1960) 48 Georgetown Law Journal 431 at 444ffGoogle Scholar; Cunningham, AJ ‘The European Convention on Human Rights, customary international law and the constitution’ (1994) 43 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 537 at 547CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, above n 9, pp 11–12; Charlesworth, H et al ‘Deep anxieties: Australia and the international legal order’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 423 at 451Google Scholar; Morgenstern, F ‘Judicial practice and the supremacy of international law’ (195) 27 British Year Book of International Law 42 Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, H ‘Is international law a part of the law of England?’ (1939) 25 Transactions of the Grotius Society 51 Google Scholar; Walker, K ‘Treaties and the internationalisation of Australian law’ in Saunders, C (ed) Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia (Federation Press, 1996) p 204 at pp 227ffGoogle Scholar; SirMason, Anthony ‘International law as a source of domestic law’ in Opeskin, BR and Rothwell, DR International Law and Australian Federalism (Melbourne University Press, 1997) p 210 at pp 212ff.Google Scholar
24. See, eg, Trendtex, above n 8, at 553 per Lord Denning MR. In the Australian context, see Nulyarimma, above n 6, at 178–191 per Merkel J.
25. Triggs, above n 9, p 132.
26. Trendtex, above n 8, at 569 per Stephenson LJ. See also Nulyarimma, above n 6, at 184 per Merkel J.
27. Walker, above n 23, p 228.
28. J Crawford International Law in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia 1996–2008: A Comparison Speech delivered for The First Michael Kirby Lecture in International Law, Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, Canberra, 27 June 2008, available at http://law.anu.edu.au/Cipl/Lectures&Seminars/2008/KirbyLecture_Crawford.pdf. See also Crawford, J General international law and the common law: a decade of developments’ (1982) 76 American Society of International Law Proceedings 232 at 232.Google Scholar
29. Crawford, J and Edeson, WR, ‘International law and Australian law’ in Ryan, KW (ed) International Law in Australia (Law Book Co of Australasia, 1984) p 71 at p 78.Google Scholar
30. (1737) Cas Temp Talbot 281.
31. (1764) 3 Burr 1478.
32. Brownlie, above n 9, p 41; Shaw, above n 9, p 129.
33. (1876) 2 Ex D 63.
34. [1905] 2 KB 391.
35. SirHoldsworth, William S Essays in Law and History (Clarendon Press, 1946) pp 263–266 Google Scholar. See also IA Shearer ‘The relationship between international law and domestic law’ in Opeskin and Rothwell, above n 23, pp 40ff; Wallace, above n 9, p 41.
36. Shaw, above n 9, p 131.
37. Lauterpacht, above n 23, at 60.
38. Brownlie, above n 9, p 43. See also Sir Anthony Mason, above n 23, p 214; Collier, above n 23, at 929; Trendtex, above n 8, at 569 per Stephenson LJ; Crawford and Edeson, above n 29, p 73.
39. Chung Chi Cheung, above n 8, at 167–168.
40. Triggs, above n 9, p 134; Collier, above n 23, at 931; O'Connell, above n 23, at 446.
41. Above n 8, at 554 per Lord Denning MR. See also at 578–579 per Shaw LJ.
42. Above n 8.
43. Shaw, above n 9, p 129; Brownlie, above n 9, p 44; Triggs, above n 9, p 135; Wallace, above n 9, p 40; Hunt, above n 9, p 11.
44. Collier, above n 23, p 935. See also O'Connell, above n 23, at 445; R v Jones (Margaret)[2006] 2 All ER 741 at 751 per Lord Bingham. Note, however, the criticisms of this formulation by Crawford International Law in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia, above n 28; Higgins, R The relationship between international and regional human rights norms and domestic law’ (1992) 18 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 1268 at 1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Brownlie, above n 9, p 47.
46. [1976] 3 All ER 843 at 847.
47. Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority [1978] QB 36 at 48. See also R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Phansopkar [1976] QB 606 at 626.
48. [1979] Ch 344.
49. Ibid, at 366.
50. Ibid, at 379.
51. [1980] AC 477.
52. Ibid, at 483.
53. [1981] AC 303.
54. Ibid, at 352.
55. Ibid, at 352.
56. Ibid, at 354.
57. [1990] 1 AC 109 at 283 per Lord Goff of Chieveley.
58. [1991] 1 QB 429 at 449.
59. [1992] QB 770.
60. Ibid, at 819.
61. Ibid, at 830.
62. Ibid, at 812.
63. [1999] 2 AC 240.n>
64. Ibid, at 259 per Lord Irvine of Lairg LC, 265 per Lord Slynn of Hadley, 277 per Lord Hope of Craighead.
65. Higgins, above n 44, at 1273.
66. See, eg, Walker, above n 23, p 217. Ambiguity was originally a pre-requisite for resort to international human rights law under the Bangalore Principles of 1988. However, that requirement was discarded as these principles were developed in 1998. Cf Keith, KJ, ‘Protecting human rights in a time of terror: the role of national and international law’ (2005) 13 Waikato Law Review 22 at 30–31.Google Scholar
67. Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at 207–208 per Lord Steyn; International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 QB 728 at 759 per Laws LJ.
68. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 306 per Mason CJ and McHugh J, 360 per Toohey J; Teoh, above n 11, at 288 per Mason CJ and Deane J.
69. Teoh, ibid. See also now Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex p Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 at 10, 13, 21–30, 37–38, 47–49.
70. Ex p Lam, ibid, at 28–34 per McHugh and Gummow JJ, 38–39 per Hayne J, 44–48 per Callinan J. Cf Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365 at 416; Povey v Qantas Airways Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 189 at 199; Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment (2006) 225 CLR 130 at 167.
71. See, eg, Tavita v Minister of Immigration (NZ) [1994] 2 NZLR 257 at 266 per Cooke P.
72. Above n 10.
73. Ibid, at 761–762.
74. [1998] INLR 570.
75. Ibid, at 583–584.
76. See Crawford International Law in the House of Lords and the High Court of Australia, above n 28.
77. [2001] QB 667.
78. Ibid at 690. See also at 686 per Simon Brown LJ. Further, see R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213.
79. [2004] QB 811
80. Ibid, at 830 per Simon Brown LJ. See also at 844 per Laws LJ.
81. This principles stems as far back as The Parlement Belge (1879) 4 PD 129, if not earlier.
82. Above n 8.
83. Charlesworth et al, above n 23, at 446.
84. See, eg, Combet v Commonwealth (2005) 224 CLR 494 at 594; Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45 at 134; White v Director of Military Prosecutions (2007) 231 CLR 570 at 602–603.
85. (2002) 213 CLR 1.
86. Ibid, at 389.
87. See, eg, Sir Anthony Mason, above n 5.
88. Teoh, above n 11, at 288 per Mason CJ and Deane J.
89. (1949) 77 CLR 449.
90. Crawford and Edeson, above n 29, p 77.
91. Charlesworth et al, above n 23, at 453. See also Shearer, above n 35, p 49.
92. Chow Hung Ching, above n 89, at 477 (emphasis added).
93. Brierly, JL International law in England’ (1935) 51 Law Quarterly Review 24.Google Scholar
94. (1936) 55 CLR 608.
95. Further information on the opinions of Murphy J may be found in Kirby, M, ‘The Australian use of international human rights norms: from Bangalore to Ballilol – a view from the antipodes’ (1993) 16 University of New South Wales Law Journal 363 at 375–376.Google Scholar
96. For a discussion of Murphy J's jurisprudential legacy, see Coper, M and Williams, G (eds) Justice Lionel Murphy: Influential or Merely Prescient? (Gaunt, 1997).Google Scholar
97. These examples are borrowed from Walker, above n 23, p 212.
98. (1985) 156 CLR 385.
99. Ibid, at 395.
100. (1978) 142 CLR 583.
101. Ibid, at 607.
102. (1979) 143 CLR 575.
103. (1992) 177 CLR 292.
104. See Kirby, MD The role of the judge in advancing human rights by reference to international human rights norms’ (1988) 62 ALJ 514 at 531–532 where the Principles are reproduced.Google Scholar
105. Hunt, above n 9, p 37.
106. (1988) 12 NSWLR 558.
107. Ibid, at 582.
108. Ibid, at 569.
109. Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414.
110. Ibid, 4 at 422.
111. (1991) 23 NSWLR 304.
112. Ibid, at 312–313.
113. See, eg, Young v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1993) 32 NSWLR 262 at 276 per Kirby P.
114. Above n 1.
115. Ibid, at 29.
116. Ibid, at 41–42.
117. Ibid, at 42.
118. Above n 103, at 306.
119. Ibid, at 321.
120. Ibid, at 360–361.
121. (1992) 178 CLR 477.
122. Ibid, at 499.
123. Above n 11, at 288.
124. Ibid, at 315.
125. See, eg, Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125 at [24] per Ryan, Merkel and Goldberg JJ; R v Stringer (2000) 116 A Crim R 198 at 217 per Adams J; R v Granger (2004) 88 SASR 453 at 477 per Perry J; Tomasevic v Travaglini (2007) 17 VR 100 at 114 per Bell J.
126. Balkin, R International law and domestic law’ in Blay, S, Piotrowicz, R and Tsamenyi, M (eds) Public International Law: An Australian Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2005) p 115 at p 119Google Scholar; Triggs, above n 9, p 132. See also the discussion in Brownlie, above n 9, pp 43–44.
127. Above n 6.
128. Ibid, at 674. See also at 558–559 per Brennan J; Chow Hung Ching, above n 89, at 472 per Starke J.
129. Charlesworth et al, above n 23 at 451; Shearer, I The implications of non-treaty law-making: customary law and its implications’ in Alston, P and Chiam, M Treaty-Making and Australia: Globalisation versus Sovereignty? (Federation Press, 1995) 93 at 94Google Scholar; Hunt, above n 9, p 12; Triggs, above n 9, p 135.
130. Mabo, above n 1, at 29 (Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing).
131. It is also a feature that poses difficulties for other countries, such as Canada: de Mestral and Fox-Decent, above n 20, p 31.
132. See, eg, Burmester, H and Reye, S 'The place of customary international law in Australian law: unfinished business’ (2000) 21 Australian Year Book of International Law 39 at 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
133. Teoh, above n 11, at 288 per Mason CJ and Deane J. In the Canadian context, see the concerns contained in the dissent of Iacobucci and Cory JJ in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817 at 866.
134. Byrnes, A, Charlesworth, H and McKinnon, G Bills of Rights in Australia: History, Politics and Law (University of New South Wales Press, 2009) pp 30–36.Google Scholar
135. For a comparison of the different sources of guidance, see Jago, above n 106, where Samuels JA looked extensively to historical materials while the author made reference to international law.
136. Ibid, at 569 per Kirby P.
137. See above.
138. McInnis, above n 102.
139. Monks, SS In defence of the use of public international law by Australian courts’ (2002) 22 Australian Yearbook of International Law 201 at 222–223.Google Scholar
140. Ibid, at 223.
141. Referring to the 1998 re-statement: see Keith, above n 66, at 31.
142. Hunt, above n 9, p 35; Walker, above n 23, p 233.
143. Kirby, M A Bill of Rights for Australia – but do we need it?’ (1995) 21 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 276 at 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the Canadian context, see de Mestral and Fox-Decent, above n 20, pp 60–61.
144. See, eg, Charlesworth, H Protecting human rights’ (1994) 68 Law Institute Journal 462 at 463.Google Scholar
145. Walker, above n 23, p 233.
146. HP Bulmer, above n 2, at 418 per Lord Denning.
147. See, eg, Mabo, above n 1, at 41–42 per Brennan J (Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing).
148. Tavita, above n 15, at 266.
149. de Mestral and Fox-Decent, above n 20, p 34.
150. Speech delivered at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the International Court of Justice, Opening of Colloquium, High Court of Australia, Canberra, 18 May 1996.
151. Sir Anthony Mason, above n 5, at 23.
152. Bingham, above n 3, at 514.
153. Ibid.
154. OE Fitzgerald ‘Understanding the question of legitimacy in the interplay between domestic and international law’ in Fitzgerald, above n 16, p 130.
155. Kirby, M ‘International law: the impact on national constitutions’ (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 327 Google Scholar; Kirby, M ‘International law: the impact on national constitutions’ (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 327 Google Scholar; Kirby, M ‘Transnational judicial dialogue, internationalisation of law and Australian judges’ (2008) 9 Melbourne Journal of International Law 171 at 185.Google Scholar
