¹ (1995) 183 CLR 273.

² Report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Trick or Treaty:Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties (1995).

³ (1997) 142 ALR 331.

⁴ See, eg, Bradley v Commonwealth (1973) 128 CLR 557 at 582 per Barwick CJ and Gibbs J; Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 570-571 per Gibbs CJ; Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 305 per Mason CJ and McHugh J. Obviously, where a treaty provision is in accordance with established Australian law, whether statutory or common law, no further domestic action will be required.

⁵ “Where the common law is unclear, an international instrument may be used by a court as a guide to that law … ”: Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 360 per Toohey J.

⁶ Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s15AB; ICI Australia Operations Pty Limited v Fraser (1992)34 FCR 564 at 569-570.

⁷ See the discussion in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration,Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 38 per Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

⁸ For example, F McKenzie, “What have we done with the Refugee Convention?” (1996) 70 ALJ 813; A Twomey, “Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh”(1995) 23 FL Rev 348;S Roberts, “Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh:The High Court Decision and the Government's Reaction to it” (1995) 2 Aust J Human Rights 135;M Allars, “One Small Step for Legal Doctrine,One Giant Leap Towards Integrity in Government: Teoh's case and the Internationalisation of Administrative Law”(1995) 17 Syd LR 204;K Walker and Mathew, P, “Minister for Immigration v Ah Hin Teoh”(1995) 20 MULR 236Google Scholar.

⁹ Joint Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, International Treaties and the High Court Decision in Teoh, 10 May 1995.

¹⁰ Joint Statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, The Effect of Treaties in Administrative Decision-Making, 25 February 1997.

¹¹ Public international lawyers have consistently referred to the benefits of an approach which takes account of international obligations: see, for example, Conforti, B, International Law and the Role of Domestic Legal Systems (1993) at 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva 1951), Article 1A(2).

¹³ (1982) 153 CLR 168.

¹⁴ Ibid at 265 per Brennan J.

¹⁵ The Law of Treaties (2nd ed 1961).

¹⁶ Fitzmaurice, G, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-4: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points” (1957) 33 BYBIL 203Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Lauterpacht, H, “Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties”(1949) 26 BYBIL 48Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law (4th ed 1990) at 626Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Rosenne, S, “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law Commission's Draft Articles:A Comparison” (1966) 5 Columbia J Trans Law 205Google Scholar.

²⁰ International Law Commission “Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly”[1966] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 169 at 219.

²¹ For a detailed analysis of the preparatory work,see Brazil, P, “Some Reflections on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”(1975) 6 FL Rev 223Google Scholar.

²² I Brownlie, above n 18 at 627.

²³ Australian Treaty Series 1974 No 2.

²⁴ Conditions of Admission of State to Membership in the United Nations [1948] ICJ Rep 56 at 63.

²⁵ Earlier decisions of the High Court had held that the Vienna Convention should be applied to issues of treaty interpretation by Australian courts.For example,in the Tasmanian Dams case (Tasmania v Commonwealth (1983) 158 CLR 1) Gibbs CJ stated at 93 that “[t]he interpretation of treaties is now governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.

²⁶ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 332.

²⁷ Ibid at 333.

²⁸ (1993) 103 DLR (4th) 1.

²⁹ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 349.

³⁰ Ibid at 350.

³¹ Series A, Vol 18 (1975) 14.

³² Ibid at 27-28.

³³ (1983) 158 CLR 1 at 177 per Murphy J.

³⁴ Shearer, I (ed), Starke's International Law (11th ed 1994) at 435Google Scholar.

³⁵ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 352.

³⁶ Series A, Vol 18 (1975) 14.

³⁷ International Law Commission,above n 20 at 219;F Jacobs and White, R, The European Convention on Human Rights (2nd ed 1996) at 28Google Scholar.

³⁸ Tyrer v United Kingdom Series A vol 26 at 15-16.

³⁹ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 354.

⁴⁰ Refugee Convention, Article 1A(2).

⁴¹ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 369-370.

⁴² Ibid at 369-370.

⁴³ Ibid at 374.

⁴⁴ Ibid at 376.

⁴⁵ Ibid at 339.

⁴⁶ Ibid at 339.

⁴⁷ Ibid at 340.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Ibid at 345.

⁵⁰ Ibid at 381.

⁵¹ Ibid at 382.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Ibid at 370.

⁵⁴ Ibid at 383.

⁵⁵ Ibid at 389.

⁵⁶ United Nations Doc HCR/PRO/4 (1979).

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Thiyagarajah v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 143 ALR 118.

⁵⁹ Ibid at 124.

⁶⁰ The nature of legislative responses to international obligations has recently been considered by Campbell: B Campbell, “The Implementation of Treaties in Australia” in B Opeskin and Rothwell, D (eds), International Law and Australian Federalism (1997) at 144-147Google Scholar.

⁶¹ (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 332.

⁶² A similar view was expressed by Mr P Brazil (Leader of the Australian Delegation to the Conference which resulted in the Vienna Convention) when he stated that in cases of interpretation of treaties by domestic courts “[t]here can be no doubt that,in principle, the Court should apply the meaning the treaty bears under international law.” P Brazil, above n21.