Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Tessema, Marshet Tadesse
2018.
Prosecution of Politicide in Ethiopia.
Vol. 18,
Issue. ,
p.
65.
Article contents
Is Genocide a Crime Unknown to Australian Law? Nulyarimma v. Thompson1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Extract
While it is clear that international treaties become part of Australian domestic law only once implemented by domestic legislation, it is less certain whether implementing legislation is required to incorporate customary international law into Australian law. This question is assuming a new importance as international law moves beyond dealing simply with relationships between sovereign nations to protecting the human rights of groups and individuals within states. Since the arrival of Europeans, indigenous Australians have witnessed enormous violations of their human rights. In Nulyarimma v. Thompson, members of the Aboriginal community alleged that certain Commonwealth Ministers and Members of Parliament had committed genocide, and sought various remedies. Since Australia has not implemented the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by legislation, the case squarely raised the issue of whether customary international law, and in particular international criminal law, could become part of Australian law without the assistance of Parliament.
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2000
References
3. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 30 06 1949, pp. 1875–1876 (Leslie Haylen)Google Scholar.
4. (1999) 165 ALR p. 621 (‘Nulyarimma’)Google Scholar.
5. Opened for signature 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered into force 12 01 1951) (‘Genocide Convention’)Google Scholar.
6. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 15 08 1974, p. 965 (Donald Willesee, Minister for Foreign Affairs)Google Scholar.
7. Memorandum from the Acting Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, G.A. Watson, to the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, 6 April 1949, Ref. 47/740 (copy on file with the author).
8. Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law, Final Report (1991) pp. 86–87Google Scholar.
9. Transcript of Proceedings, Nulyarimma v. Thompson (Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox, Whitlam and Merkel JJ, commencing 31 May 1999) p. 34 (‘Appeal’) (Julian Burnside QC).
10. Aughterson, E.P., Extradition: Australian Law and Procedure (Sydney, Law Book Company 1995) pp. 59–60Google Scholar.
11. Wadjularbinna Nulyarimma, Isobel Coe, Billy Craigie and Robbie Thorpe.
12. Re Thompson; Ex parte Nulyarimma (1998) 136 ACTR, p. 9Google Scholar.
13. In relation to the Ten Point Plan, see Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia, Amended Wik, 10 Point Plan, Press Release (8 05 1997)Google Scholar; see also ‘The Prime Minister's Ten Point Plan as at 8 May 1997’, 20 University of New South Wales Law Journal (1997) p. 522Google Scholar; Bartlett, R., ‘A Return to Dispossession and Discrimination: The Ten Point Plan’, 27 University of Western Australia Law Review (1991) p. 44Google Scholar.
14. Buzzacott v. Hill [1999] FCA 639 (Unreported, Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Heerey, Nicholson and Finn JJ, 10 05 1999)Google Scholar.
15. Ibid., p. 3.
16. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
17. Opened for signature 23 November 1972, 1037 UNTS p. 151Google Scholar; 11 ILM p. 1358 (entered into force 17 December 1975) (‘World Heritage Convention’).
18. Supra n. 4, at p. 624.
19. Ibid., at pp. 640–641, (Merkel J).
20. Ibid., at p. 627 (Wilcox J), at p. 632 (Whitlam J), at pp. 641–642 (Merkel J).
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., at p. 641.
23. Walker, K., ‘Treaties and the Internationalisation of Australian Law’, in Saunders, C., ed., Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia (Sydney, Federation Press 1996) pp. 204, 228 et seqGoogle Scholar.
24. Mason, A., ‘International Law as a Source of Domestic Law,’ in Opeskin, B. and Rothwell, D., eds., International Law and Australian Federalism (Carlton, Victoria, Melbourne University Press 1997) pp. 210, 212Google Scholar; Walker, ibid., at p. 228.
25. Ibid., at p. 229.
26. See Crawford, J. and Edeson, W.R., ‘International Law and Australian Law’, in Ryan, K., ed., International Law in Australia, 2nd edn. (North Ryde, NSW, Law Book Co. 1984) pp. 71, 73Google Scholar.
27. Walker, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 228.
28. Mason, loc. cit. n. 24, at p. 214.
29. Ibid., at p. 212.
30. Shearer, I.A., ‘The Relationship between International Law and Domestic Law’ in Opeskin, B. and Rothwell, D., eds., International Law and Australian Federalism (Carlton, Victoria, Melbourne University Press 1997) at p. 44Google Scholar; Mason, loc. cit. n. 24, at p. 212; Donaghue, S., ‘Balancing Sovereignty and International Law: The Domestic Impact of International Law in Australia,’ 17 Adelaide LR (1995) pp. 213 at 225Google Scholar. In both The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD p. 197Google Scholar and Walker v. Bird [1892] AC p. 491Google Scholar, it was held that unincorporated treaties did not affect private rights. In Australia, see Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR pp. 1, 74 (McHugh, J)Google Scholar: ‘The entry into a treaty by Australia does not change the domestic law’; Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade v. Magno (1992) 37 FCR pp. 298, 303–305 (Gummow, J)Google Scholar; Simsek v. Macphee (1982) 148 CLR pp. 636, 641–642 (Stephen, J)Google Scholar; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 183 CLR pp. 273, 287 (Mason, CJ and Deane, J)Google Scholar: ‘a treaty which has not been incorporated into our municipal law cannot operate as a direct source of individual rights and obligations under that law’.
31. See Polites v. Commonwealth (1945) 70 CLR p. 60Google Scholar (consistent with the hard incorporation approach); Chow Hung Citing v. The King (1949) 77 CLR pp. 449, 477Google Scholar (consistent with both the soft transformation and soft incorporation approaches).
32. Some of these observations were consistent with the transformation approach: Bonser v. La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR pp. 177, 214 (Windeyer, J)Google Scholar; New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR pp. 337, 407 (Gibbs, J)Google Scholar, 496 (Jacobs J). Others were consistent with the incorporation approach: New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR pp. 337, 500–502 (Murphy, J)Google Scholar; A Raptis & Son v. South Australia (1977) 138 CLR pp. 346, 394–395 (Murphy, J)Google Scholar.
33. Supra n. 4, at p. 629.
34. Ibid., p. 628.
35. Shearer, loc. cit. n. 30, at p. 44.
36. Supra n. 4, at p. 629.
37. [1977] 1 QB p.529.
38. Supra n. 4, at p. 650.
39. Ibid., at p. 651, citing Reference re: Powers of Ottawa (City) and Rockcliffe Park [1943] SCR pp. 208, 214, 230–231 (Duff, CJ)Google Scholar, 232–3 (Rinfret J); 2 DLR pp. 481, 484, 501 (Duff, CJ)Google Scholar, 502–504 (Rinfret J); Reference re: Exemption of United States Forces from proceedings in Canadian Criminal Courts [1943] SCR pp. 483, 516 (Taschereau, J)Google Scholar; 4 DLR pp. 11, 41.
40. Supra n. 4, at p. 651, citing Marine Steel Ltd. v. Government of the Marshall Islands [1981] 2 NZLR p. 1Google Scholar; Governor of Pitcairn and Associated Islands v. Sutton [1995] 1 NZLR pp. 426,436 (Richardson, J)Google Scholar.
41. Supra n. 4, at p. 651. See also Shearer, loc. cit. n. 30, at pp. 38–40.
42. Ibid., at p. 653.
43. Ibid., citing Compania Naviera Vascongado v. SS Cristina [1938] AC pp. 485, 497 (Lord Macmillan).
44. See Chung Chi Cheung v. The King [1939] AC pp. 160, 168 (Lord Atkin).
45. See Sawer, G., ‘Australian Constitutional Law in Relation to International Relations and International Law and Australian Law’, in O'Connell, D.P., ed., International Law in Australia (London, Stevens 1965) pp. 35, 50Google Scholar; Mason, loc. cit. n. 24, at p. 215.
46. See also Merkel J's statements in Nulyarimma, supra n. 4, at p. 666, where his Honour explains that there is no value judgment involved because adoption will occur if the established criteria are satisfied.
47. Ibid., at pp. 631 (Wilcox J) and at p. 638 (Whitlam J).
48. Ibid., at p. 637.
49. Ibid., at p. 661.
50. Ibid., at p. 668.
51. Ibid., at pp. 662–663.
52. (1876) 2 Ex D p. 63.
53. [1939] AC p. 160.
54. Supra n. 4, at p. 656.
55. [1934] AC pp. 586, 589.
56. Supra n. 4, at p. 656.
57. Ibid., at p. 637.
58. Ibid., at p. 652.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., at pp. 656–657.
61. Ibid., at p. 658, referring to Polyukhovich v. Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR pp. 501, 576 (Brennan J).
62. Pinochet (1999) 2 All ER p. 97Google Scholar. See generally, Mitchell, A.D., ‘Leave Your Hat On? Head of State Immunity and Pinochet’, 25 Monash LR (1999) p. 225Google Scholar; Bhuta, N., ‘Justice without Borders? Prosecuting General Pinochet’, 23 Melbourne Univ. LR (1999) p. 499Google Scholar.
63. Pinochet case, supra n. 62, at pp. 100–101 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson).
64. Ibid., pp. 135 et seq. (Lord Hope). Lord Millett (at pp. 179–180) and Lord Phillips (at pp. 89–90) reached the same conclusion as Lord Hope on this point.
65. Ibid., p. 177.
66. Ibid., pp. 177–178.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Supra n. 4, at pp. 635–637.
70. (1962) ILR p.277.
71. (1999) All ER pp. 97, 175–178.
72. Ibid., p. 176 (Lord Millett).
73. Supra n. 4, at p. 635.
74. Malanczuk, P., Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised edn. (New York, Routledge 1997)p. 113Google Scholar.
75. Eichmann 36 ILR (1962) pp. 277, 292Google Scholar [emphasis added],
76. Ibid., p. 279.
77. See also supra n. 4, at p. 661 (Merkel J).
78. Re Demjanjuk, 603 F Supp 1468 (ND Ohio, 1985); Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F 2d 571 (6th Cir, 1985).
79. Supra n. 4, at p. 636.
80. R v. Withers [1975] AC pp. 842, 858 (Viscount Dilhorne)Google Scholar.
81. Supra n. 4, at pp. 663–664, citing R v. Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR pp. 268, 304 (McHugh, J)Google Scholar; R v. Knuller (Publishing) Ltd [1973] AC pp. 435, 457–458 (Lord, Reid)Google Scholar, 464–465 (Lord Morris), 479 (Lord Diplock), 490 (Lord Simon) and 496 (Lord Kilbrandon).
82. See e.g., White v. Paulsen, 997 F Supp p. 1380 (Wash, ED, 1998)Google Scholar and Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F Supp 2d p. 1244 (Cal, CD, 1999)Google Scholar.
83. E.g., the second reading speech for the Criminal Code Bill 1995 (Cth) and the Crimes Amendment Bill 1995 (Cth): Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 1 03 1995, pp. 1331–1336 (Kerr, Duncan, Minister for Justice)Google Scholar.
84. Smith, A.T.H., ‘Judicial Law Making in the Criminal Law’, 100 Law Quarterly Review (1984) p. 46Google Scholar, cited in Giles, M., ‘Judicial Law-Making in the Criminal Courts: The Case of Marital Rape’, Crim. LR (1992) pp. 407, at 408Google Scholar.
85. Jones, T., ‘Common Law and Criminal Law: The Scottish Example’, Crim. LR (1990) p. 292Google Scholar.
86. Supra n. 4, at pp. 629–630.
87. (1876) 2 Ex D pp. 63, 203.
88. Supra n. 4, at pp. 629–630. For more information on this distinction see Vázquez, C., ‘The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties’, 89 AJIL (1995) p. 695CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 US (2 Pet) p. 253 (1829)Google Scholar.
89. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn. (New York, Clarendon Press 1998) p. 50Google Scholar.
90. Supra n. 4, at p. 630.
91. (1876) 2 Ex D pp. 63, 193, 203Google Scholar. The issue was ‘the exercise of criminal jurisdiction as a corollary of the territorial status of the littoral sea’: Brownlie, op. cit. n. 89, at p. 44. See also Nulyarimma (1999) 165 ALR 621, 645–646 (Merkel, J)Google Scholar.
92. Brownlie, op. cit. n. 89, at p. 44.
93. Supra n. 4, at p. 665.
94. Ibid., p. 663, citing La Trobe University v. Robinson [1972] VR p. 883; Keeley v. Justice Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162Google Scholar; Gallagher v. Durack(1983) 152 CLR 238Google Scholar; Hinch v. A-G (Vic) [1987] VR p. 121Google Scholar; Hinch v. A-G (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR p. 15Google Scholar.
95. Nulyarimma (1999) 165 ALR pp. 621, 665–666Google Scholar.
96. Ibid., pp. 664–666.
97. Ibid., p. 664.
98. (1) A generally accepted principle of international law must be identified. (2) The principle must not be strictly inconsistent with domestic legislation or the common law. See supra n. 28, and accompanying text.
99. Supra n. 4, at p. 666.
100. Ibid., p. 667.
101. Jones, loc. cit. n. 85, at p. 299.
102. Nygh, P. and Butt, P., eds., Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary (Sydney, Butterworths 1997) p. 805Google Scholar; Walker, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 895.
103. Ibid.
104. Supra n. 4, at p. 630.
105. Ibid., p. 666.
106. Ibid., p. 662.
107. Ibid., p. 637.
108. Ibid., p. 662.
109. Ibid., p. 663.
110. Ibid., citing Polites v. Commonwealth 70 (1945) CLR pp. 60, 68–69 (Latham CJ), 77 (Dixon J), pp. 79, 81 (Williams J).
111. Supra n. 4, at pp. 637–638.
112. Ibid., p. 638.
113. See discussion of the intent requirement at A. Mitchell, loc. cit. n. 2, at nn. 11–15 and accompanying text.
114. Supra n. 4, at pp. 626–627.
115. Ibid., p. 638.
116. Ibid., p. 670.
117. Re Thompson; Ex parte Nitlyarimma (1998) 136 ACTR pp. 9, 32–33Google Scholar.
118. Ibid., p. 33.
119. Supra n. 4, at p. 671.
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid., at pp. 621, 671.
122. Ibid., p. 672.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid., at p. 638.
125. Ibid., pp. 669–671 (parliamentary privilege), 676–678 (World Heritage Convention, supra n. 17, as a source of law).
126. See generally ibid., pp. 669–670 (Merkel J); Campbell, E., Parliamentary Privilege in Australia (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press 1966)Google Scholar.
127. See generally Williams, G., Human Rights under the Australian Constitution (Melbourne, Oxford University Press 1999) pp. 165–193Google Scholar. See also Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 189 CLR (1997) p. 520Google Scholar.
128. Nulyarimma v. Thompson C18/1999 (Unreported, High Court of Australia, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ, 4 August 2000).
129. See e.g., Sumner v. United Kingdom of Great Britain [1999] SASC p. 456Google Scholar (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Nyland J, 27 October 1999) (‘Sumner’); aff'd [1999] SASC p. 462 (Unreported, Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Doyle CJ, Debelle and Lander JJ, 2 November 1999) (‘Sumner appeal’); Thorpe v. Kennett [1999] VSC p. 442Google Scholar (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Warren J, 15 November 1999).
130. Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (Cth); Second reading speech: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 13 October 1999, p. 9612 (Brian Greig); Senator Brian Greig, Anti-Genocide Bill Gets the Go-Ahead, Press Release, No. 99/546 (14 October 1999).
131. Ibid., Sch. 1 contains amendments to the Genocide Convention Act 1949 (Cth).
132. Ibid., Sch. 1 cl. 2. In this paragraph, underlining indicates words that have been added to the Genocide Convention definition and strike-through indicates words that have been deleted from that definition.
133. See e.g., Mitchell, A., ‘The United States Extraterritorial War on Drugs’, 2 Southern Cross University Law Review (1998) pp. 36, 45–56Google Scholar.
134. Lane, P.H., Lane's Commentary on the Australian Constitution, 2nd edn. (Sydney, LBC Information Services 1998) p. 145Google Scholar.
135. Ibid.
136. Statute of the ICTY, Art. 8.
137. Statute of the ICTR, Art. 7.
138. Commonwealth, Journals of the Senate, No. 79 (14 10 1999) p. 1890Google Scholar.
139. See the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (Cth) in Commonwealth, Journals of the Senate, No. 79, 14 10 1999, p. 1890Google Scholar. The author lodged a submission dated 18 February 2000 with Penelope Mathew, Professor Hilary Charlesworth and Associate Professor Robert McCorquodale to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee in relation to its inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (Cth): Charlesworth, Hilary et al. , ‘Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee — Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999’, Submissions to Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 Vol. 2 (2000) p. 339Google Scholar.
140. Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, Humanity Diminished: The Crime of Genocide (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 2000) paras. 5.6–5.7Google Scholar.
141. Ibid.
142. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 6 December 2000, 20898 (Ian Campbell).
143. Ibid. See also, Department of Foreign Affairs of Trade, National Interest Analysis: Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17 July 1998 (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/nia/2000/2000024n.html.
144. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 30 06 1949, 1875–1876 (Leslie Haylen)Google Scholar.
145. Transcript of Proceedings, Nulyarimma v. Thompson (Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox, Whitlam and Merkel JJ, commencing 31 May 1999) 106 (‘Appeal’) (Julian Burnside QC).
146. Supra n. 5, Art. I.
147. Glaser, K. and Possony, S., Victims of Politics: The State of Human Rights (New York, Columbia University Press 1979) p. 37Google Scholar.
148. Lippman, M., ‘The Drafting of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, 3 Boston Univ. ILJ (1985) pp. 1 at 62Google Scholar.
149. Ibid., pp. 62–63.
150. Ibid.
151. Ibid., p. 64.
152. Mathew, P., ‘International Law and the Protection of Human Rights in Australia: Recent Trends’, 17 Sydney LR (1995) pp. 177, 194–195Google Scholar; Higgins, R., ‘The Relationship between International Law and Regional Human Rights Norms and Domestic Law’, 18 Commonwealth Law Bulletin (1992) pp. 1268, 1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
153. Donaghue, loc. cit. n. 30, at p. 261.
154. Ibid.
155. Williams, op. cit. n. 127, at p. 15.
156. Ibid., p. 16, citing British Railways Board v. Pickin [1974] AC 765,782; Building Construction Employees & Builders’ Labourers Federation of NSW v. Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372, 405 (Kirby, P)Google Scholar. Cf., Dr Bonham's Case (1610) 8 Co Rep 107a, 118aGoogle Scholar; 77 ER 638, 652 (Coke CJ):
‘And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void…’
See also Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v. The Queen 166 (1988) CLR pp. 1, 10Google Scholar.
157. An English translation of Art. 25 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany is reproduced in Currie, D., The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Chicago, University of Chicago Press 1994) p. 354Google Scholar. Article 25 of the Grundgesetz provides: ‘Die allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechts sind Bestandteil des Bundesrechtes. Sie gehen den Gestzen vor und erzeugen Rechte und Pflichten unmittelbar für die Bewohner des Bundesgebietes.’
158. Transcript of Proceedings, Nulyarimma v. Thompson (Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox, Whitlam and Merkel JJ, commencing 31 May 1999) 41 (‘Appeal’) (Julian Burnside QC).
- 1
- Cited by