Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:28:32.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and Australian Federalism. Edited by Brian R. Opeskin and Donald R. Rothwell. Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 1997. Pp. xviii, 374. Index.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Rosalie Balkin
Rosalie Balkin*
Affiliation:
International Maritime Organization
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 793 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 183 C.L.R. 273. The case involved an application for review of an administrative decision to deport an alien (Teoh), who had a wife and children in Australia, following his conviction for the importation and possession of heroin. The High Court held that the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which had been ratified but not incorporated by legislation into Australian law, gave rise to a “legitimate expectation,” absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that decision makers would act in conformity with the Convention. This “legitimate expectation” did not, as such, incorporate the Convention but did give rise to a duty of procedural fairness in cases where the decision maker proposed to make a decision inconsistent with it, so that the person affected is required to be given notice of the decision maker's intention and an adequate opportunity to make representations concerning it.