Judicial Federalism and Representation

This chapter identifies the origins, content, and operation of federal jurisdiction in Australia. In the United States the creation of federal jurisdiction was the necessary concomitant of the establishment of the judicial arm of federal government. The same could not be said of the conditions for Australian federalism. Federalism Australian-style did not require a federal system of courts. Further complicating the issue was the ‘autochthonous expedient’: the facility provided to Parliament for the use of State courts to exercise federal jurisdiction. Hence the chapter also seeks to suggest that the discordance between the concept and purpose of federal jurisdiction left the High Court with the challenging task of conceptualizing ‘judicial federalism’. In executing that task, High Court jurisprudence has presented differing conceptions of the place of State courts within the federal judicial system.

Download Full-text

Creation of a National Disaster Court: A Response to "Judicial Federalism in Action"

Virginia Law Review ◽

10.2307/1073429 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 78 (8) ◽

pp. 1753

Author(s):

Ralph I. Lancaster ◽

Catherine R. Connors

Keyword(s):

Judicial Federalism ◽

National Disaster

Download Full-text

The Supreme Court and federalism in Nigeria

The Journal of Modern African Studies ◽

10.1017/s0022278x08003376 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 46 (3) ◽

pp. 451-485 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Rotimi T. Suberu

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Local Governance ◽

Federal State ◽

Federal Authority ◽

Oil Resources ◽

Judicial Federalism ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Revenue Allocation ◽

Offshore Oil ◽

Violent Conflicts

ABSTRACTSince Nigeria's transition from military to civilian rule in 1999, the country's Supreme Court has risen from a position of relative political obscurity and institutional vulnerability into a prominent and independent adjudicator of inter-governmental disputes in this chronically conflicted federation. Examined here is the Court's arbitration, during President Olusegun Obasanjo's two civilian constitutional terms (1999–2007), of fifteen different federal-state litigations over offshore oil resources, revenue allocation, local governance and public order. The Court's federalism decisions were remarkably independent and reasonably balanced, upholding the constitutional supremacy of the Federal Government in several findings, tilting towards the states in some declarations, and simultaneously underwriting federal authority and state autonomy in other rulings. Despite the Court's important and independent role, however, the Nigerian federation was vexed by violent conflicts, underscoring the structural, political and constitutional constraints on judicial federalism in this notoriously complex and divided country.

Download Full-text