About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

46 S. C. L. Rev. 819 (1994-1995)
Divided Justice--Judicial Structures in Federal and Confederal States

handle is hein.journals/sclr46 and id is 835 raw text is: Divided Justice? Judicial Structures in Federal and Confederal States H. Patrick Glenn* INTRODUCTION The division of legislative authority is the mark of the contemporary, complex state whether it is federal or confederal in character.' The division of judicial authority enjoys less favor. Even in states recognized as federal, there may be resistance to application of federal principles to the judiciary. What explains the reluctance to divide the pursuit of justice? Why is the reluctance overcome in some instances? What are the results? This Paper will attempt to provide responses to these questions from the perspective of the Canadian Confederation (as it has been known),2 as compared to the United States and Australian federations3 by examining successively: (1) Basic Premises; (II) Structural Variations; and (III) inevitably, Resulting Problems. I. BAsIc PREMISES Attitudes toward judicial structures appear heavily influenced by underlying attitudes concerning the nature of law, the nature of the particular complex state, and the administration of justice. Differences have emerged in these regards among Canada, the United States, and Australia, although it is interesting to observe that the same themes have figured in the debates in all three countries. Canadian judicial structures clearly have been influenced by underlying ideas concerning the nature of both the common and civil laws. In neither legal tradition has there been institutional acceptance of the idea of law as the product, exclusively, of national political or legal officials. In common-law Canada, a national, binding concept of stare decisis never has been accepted * Peter M. Laing Professor of Law, of the Faculty of Law and Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University. 1. The same is true of the essentially unitary state which tolerates a level of regional or local autonomy in one or more regions. 2. The language of federalism, as opposed to confederalism, has been increasingly used in Canada in recent years, largely as a reflection of the growth of Federal power. In terms of judicial authority, however, the confederal character of the structures still is very much in evidence. 3. For similar treatments of the subject, see Peter Hogg, Federalism and the Jurisprudence of Canadian Courts, 30 U.N.B.L.J. 9 (1981) and Bora Laskin, Comparative Constitutional Law-Common Problems: Australia, Canada, United States of America, 51 AUST. L.J. 450 (1977).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most