Remedying Misaligned Norms in International and Constitutional Law: Investment Treaties, Property Rights and Proportionality

Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn

The enlargement of the scope of international law has led to more frequent overlaps in the substantive rules of domestic and international law. One such overlap is in the rules on expropriation, or the protection of property rights. This article argues that Australian constitutional law and international law are misaligned on the question of expropriation, with international law generally imposing a higher standard of protection compared to the Australian Constitution. The article contends that this misalignment matters, because it is irrational and discriminatory, and because it hinders Australia’s compliance with international law by increasing the complexity of official decision-making. The article then considers whether and how the misalignment can be remedied. Although a deliberate re-alignment faces difficulties, the article concludes that a form of alignment may organically emerge for other reasons, as both international tribunals and the Australian High Court take tentative steps towards the use of proportionality to resolve property rights claims.

Author(s):  
Andrew Lynch

This article presents data on the High Court’s decision-making in 2019, examining institutional and individual levels of unanimity, concurrence and dissent. It points out distinctive features of those decisions – noting particularly the high frequency of both seven- member benches and the number of cases decided by concurrence over 2019. The latter suggests the possibility of greater judicial individualism re-emerging on the Court despite the clear endorsement of the ‘collegiate approach’ by Chief Justice Kiefel and its practice in the first two years of her tenure as the Chief Justice. This article is the latest instalment in a series of annual studies conducted by the authors since 2003.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Lynch ◽  
George Williams

This article presents data on the High Court’s decision-making in 2017, examining institutional and individual levels of unanimity, concurrence and dissent. It does so in the context of the elevation of a new Chief Justice to lead the Court and the appointment of a new member to the bench at the commencement of the year. Recent public statements on the Court’s decision-making practices by the new Chief Justice and others inform discussion of the statistics. This article is the latest instalment in a series of annual studies conducted by the authors since 2003.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Lynch ◽  
George Williams

This article presents data on the High Court’s decision-making in 2018, examining institutional and individual levels of unanimity, concurrence and dissent. It does so in the context of the elevation of a new Chief Justice to lead the Court and the appointment of a new member to the bench at the commencement of the year. Recent public statements on the Court’s decision-making practices by the new Chief Justice and others inform discussion of the statistics. This article is the latest instalment in a series of annual studies conducted by the authors since 2003.


Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto ◽  
Cançado Trindade

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.


2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Keren Michaeli

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document