International law, as expressed in treaties and in customary law, is of growing importance in municipal jurisdictions throughout the world. Some barriers to the use of international law in national courts are identified. Occasionally, they include scepticism and even hostility about this body of law. However, the past 60 years have witnessed a remarkable change in judicial attitudes in final courts in most Commonwealth countries.In the UK, the impact of Europe has helped create an ‘incoming tide’. In South Africa, India and Canada, constitutional provisions have stimulated the change. New Zealand is now affected by its Bill of Rights Act. But, in Australia, none of these forces was available and decisional authority adhered for decades to strict dualism.The changing pace of utilisation of international law in the UK and Australia are described. In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 now consolidates a trend already happening in the courts. In Australia, the Mabo decision in 1992 effectively endorsed the Bangalore Principles on the municipal application of international human rights norms. This paper describes the contrasting case-law. In the foregoing countries, it concludes with a response to criticisms of judicial utilisation of international law and a suggestion of the proper jurisprudential basis that can be identified to sustain a judicial process that is now well advanced in the countries surveyed.
Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers: The Impact of the U.K.'s Human Rights Act on Private Law and a Comparison with the Canadian Approach