Comparison and Co-existence: Sources and Purpose of Authority in the Australian, Madayin and Talmudic Legal Systems

  • Claire Powell Charles Darwin University

Abstract

This article will compare Australian, Madayin and Talmudic law in terms of their respective sources and purposes. It will focus on the characterisation of each system to highlight conceptual similarities and differences which affect their operation and, in particular, their commensurability with other systems. Specific areas of law concerned with coexistence are identified as being both crucial and particularly problematic. Notwithstanding Australian government statements and High Court rulings asserting the sovereignty of Australian law, it will be argued that no legal system is self-contained Accommodations are essential and require legislators to grapple with the difficulties of reconciling differing conceptualisations using an informed comparative framework. Talmudic law is considered here as an example of a system which has demonstrated the ability to coexist adaptively with a variety of other systems without compromising its integrity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BOOK

Berndt, Ronald M. An Adjustment Movement in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory of
Australia (Paris: Cashiers de L’Homme, Mouton), 1962

Dicey, A.V. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, first published 1885, 8th ed, 1915, reprint 1982

Glenn, H. Patrick. Legal Traditions of the World, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014

Goldsmith, Edward. The Way: An ecological Worldview, London: Random Century, 1992

Kelsen, Hans. pure Theory of Law, Legality and Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007

Maimonides. Introduction to the Talmud, Trans, and Annot. Z Lampel. New York: Judaica Press. 1975

McMillan, John, Evans Gareth and Haddon Storey. Australia’s Constitution: Time for Change?. Sydney:Law Foundation of New South Wales and George Allen & Unwin Australia. 1983

Quick, John and Garran, Robert. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Common¬wealth, 3rd ed. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. 1995

Zines, Leslie. Constitutional Change in the Commonwealth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991

JOURNAL

Cover, Robert M. “Obligation: a Jewish jurisprudence of the social order.” journal of Law and Religion 5, no. 1 (1987): 65-74.

Cunneen, Chris, Fiona Allison, and Melanie Schwartz. “Access to justice for Aboriginal People in the Northern Territory.” Australian journal of Social Issues 49, no. 2 (2014): 219-240. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2014.tb00309.x
Dane, Perry. “The Yoke of Heaven, The Question of Sinai, and the Life of Law.” The University of Toronto Law journal 44, no. 4 (1994): 353-400.

Dainow, Joseph. “The civil law and the common law: Some points of comparison.” The American journal of Comparative Law 15, no. 3 (1966): 419-435. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/838275?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Elon, Menachem. “The Legal System of Jewish Law.” NYUj Int’l L. & pol. 17 (1984):
221.

Elon, Menachem. “Law, Truth, and Peace: The Three Pillars of the World.” NYUj Int’l L. & pol. 29 (1996): 439.

Gaymarani, George Pascoe. “An Introduction to the Ngarra Law of Arnhem Land”.
Northern Territory Law journal1 (2011): 283-304.

Hands, Tatum. “Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law in Western Australia.” Indigenous Law Bulletin 6, no. 17 (2006): 12-15.

Kelly, Danial. “The Black and White of Wunungmurra”, Northern Territory Law journal 2 (2012): 227-235.

Kelly, Danial. “Foundational Sources and Purposes of Authority in Madayin.” victo- ria UL & just. j. 4 (2014): 33.

Kelly, Danial. “The Legal and Religious Nature of Aboriginal Customary Law: Focus on Madayin.” U. Notre dame Austl. L. Rev. 16 (2014): 50-73.

Lindell, Geoffrey J. “Why Is Australia’s Constitution Binding-The Reasons in 1900 and Now, and the Effect of Independence.” FL Rev. 16 (1986): 29.

Lindell, G. J. “Expansion or Contraction-Some Reflections about the Recent Judicial Developments on Representative Democracy.” Adel. L. Rev. 20 (1998): 111-146.

Luban, David.“The Coiled Serpent of Argument: Reason, Authority, and Law in A Talmudic Tale”, Chicago-Kent Law Review79 (2004):1253-1288.

Mattei, Ugo. “Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in The World’s Legal Systems.” The American journal of comparative law 45, no. 1 (1997): 5-44.

McKenna, Mark, Amelia Simpson, and George Williams. “First words: The Preamble to the Australian Constitution.” UNSWLj 24 (2001): 382.

Sieder, Rachel. “The Challenge of Indigenous Legal Systems: Beyond Paradigms of Recognition.” The Brown journal of World Affairs 18, no. 2 (2012): 103-114.

Sinai, Yuval. “Reconsidering Res Judicata: A Comparative Perspective.” Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 21, no. 2 (2010): 353-400. https://scholarship.law.duke. edu/djcil/vol21/iss2/3

LEGAL DOCUMENT

Australian Constitution

Foundations of Law 5740-1980, Sefer Ha-Chukim No. 978 at 163 (July 31, 1980)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 Dec.
1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., art. 2(2), U.N. Doc. A/6316
(1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 Jan. 1976)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People annexed to GA Res 61/295, UNGAOR 61

OTHER DOCUMENT

Australian Law Reform Commission. “Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws”.
Report No. 31. 12 June 1986.

Berndt, Ronald M.“A Profile of Good and Bad in Australian Aboriginal Religion”. Charles Strong Memorial Lecture 1979 reprinted from Colloquium Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Society for Theological Studies.

Calma, Tom.” Sustaining Indigenous Education, Language and Culture.”Speech delivered at World Indigenous People’s Conference: Education on 9 December 2008.

International Law Association. The Hague Conference (2010) Rights of Indigenous Peoples 74 International Law Association Report Conference. 834 2010.

Richards. Kelly, Police-referred Restorative Justice for Juveniles in Australia [online]. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 398, Aug 2010: [1]-8. http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=8 46094200631694;res=IELHSS.

Simpson, Amelia and George Williams.“International Law and Constitutional Interpretation”. 11 PLR 205.

CASE LAW

Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

CpCF v Minister for Immigration and Border protection [2015] HCA 1

Humane Society International Inc v Minister for the environment and Heritage (2003)
126 FCR 205

Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1

Mabo v Commonwealth (1992) 175 CLR 1

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR

Minister for Immigration and ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273

Milpurrurru v Indofurn pty Ltd (1995) 6 AIPJ 185 Theophanous

v Herald and Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104 R v Jack

Congo Murrell (1836) 1 Legge 72

R v Wunungmurra (2009) 196 A Crim R 166

Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1

WEBSITE CONTENT/INTERNET

Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.cdu. edu.au/au/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T 25738853566&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_ T25738853569&backKey=20_T25738853570&csi=267785&docNo=2&from DocPreview=true&scrollToPosition=0

Jewish Virtual Library. “Encyclopedia Judaica, Practice and Procedure.” http:// www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/practice-procedure
Published
2017-07-31
How to Cite
POWELL, Claire. Comparison and Co-existence: Sources and Purpose of Authority in the Australian, Madayin and Talmudic Legal Systems. Udayana Journal of Law and Culture, [S.l.], v. 1, n. 2, p. 141-156, july 2017. ISSN 2549-0680. Available at: <https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/UJLC/article/view/32153>. Date accessed: 24 jan. 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.24843/UJLC.2017.v01.i02.p04.