Waikato Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Waikato Law Review |
|
This is the tenth volume of the Waikato Law Review. As such, it is an appropriate time to take stock of the Review and to contribute to the literature of law reviews.
In the early 1980s, it was possible to suggest that North America had “no jurisprudence of legal scholarship”.[1] This is no longer the case. In North America there is now a considerable literature on the nature, role, form, and function of the university law review.[2] As one commentator puts it, “[l]egal academics in the United States seem endlessly intrigued by the subject”,[3] and Canadians are also paying more attention to their law reviews.[4]
Things are different in New Zealand. Law reviews – and legal scholarship – have attracted little academic attention thus far. To be sure, law lecturers, professors, Judges, students, and practitioners all write for the reviews, but few write about them. With the fiftieth anniversary of New Zealand’s first university law review due in 2003,[5] it is possible that more attention may be paid to the law reviews in the near future. But this is no certain thing.
This article begins by placing the Waikato Law Review in context as a mixture of English and American law review traditions. It then goes on to explore how the Waikato Law Review reflects the Waikato Law School’s three pedagogical goals of professionalism, biculturalism, and law in context. The article continues by considering some particular features of the Review and its citation in other sources, and concludes by assessing the past and future of the Waikato Law School’s flagship publication.
The Waikato Law School is the newest in New Zealand: while all the other New Zealand law schools began offering lectures in the 19th century, Waikato opened only in 1990. The first edition of the Review appeared in 1993, before the School had yet produced its first graduates.[6] It has been said in the North American context that “the existence of a law review ... is considered to be the mark of a mature educational institution”,[7] but despite the School’s young age there has never been any suggestion that the establishment of the Waikato Law Review was premature.
In the United States, most university law reviews - and there are over 250 of them - are edited by students.[8] Law reviews with university affiliations have been published in the United States since 1852.[9] The most famous is probably the Harvard Law Review, established in 1887. Some see the primary reason for the creation of the Harvard Law Review as being to “convey to the professional world the message and the scholarship of the Law School’s faculty”,[10] while others have emphasised the strong scholarly and professional skills gained by students on the law review team.[11] In any case, law reviews caught on quickly at other leading law schools, and many other such publications followed.[12]
The student-edited law reviews have not been without their critics. In 1936, for example, Yale law professor Fred Rodell remarked that “[t]here are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content”. Having criticised legal writing, Rodell went on to be even more scathing about law reviews in particular.[13] In recent years, criticism has grown. One United States judge has lamented the idea that law reviews are now full of “mediocre interdisciplinary articles”,[14] when law schools “should be ... producing scholarship that judges, legislators and practitioners can use”.[15] Another commentator has described a state of “general agreement” that law review articles “lack originality, are boring, too long, too numerous, and have too many footnotes, which are also boring and long”.[16] Nonetheless, the United States law reviews have survived, and prospered. As one scholar has put it, they are “a real fact of life”.[17]
English law reviews are a very different sort of publication. In the words of one English scholar, they have been “somewhat overshadowed by their American cousins”.[18] The Law Quarterly Review, “traditionally the most prestigious”,[19] first appeared in 1885. Before this time, there were “few outstanding English legal periodicals ... [while] America could boast scores of legal journals, several of which were being edited with a high degree of professionalism”.[20] While the Harvard Law Review and its followers were edited by students, the Law Quarterly Review was established under the editorship of Frederick Pollock, one of the most renowned jurists of the age. The English law reviews have continued to be edited primarily by academics rather than by students, and they are much fewer in number. In the main, they have avoided many of the features that law reviews are criticised for in the United States: the articles are rarely particularly long, footnotes are generally kept to a minimum, and most scholarship continues to serve judges and the profession.[21] But while some in the United States bemoan the number of interdisciplinary, non-doctrinal articles and the paucity of profession-oriented scholarship, others in Britain have complained of just the opposite.[22]
In New Zealand, the first issue of the Victoria University College Law Review appeared in 1953. This was, at the beginning, “primarily for student consumption”, and its raison d’etre was educational.[23] By the late 1960s, however, it was considered increasingly important that the VUWLR (as it had by then become) should be useful to the legal profession.[24] Following the lead of New Zealand’s first university law review, the New Zealand Universities Law Review appeared in 1963, the Otago Law Review in 1965, the Auckland University Law Review in 1967, the Canterbury Law Review in 1980, and, of course the Waikato Law Review in 1993. Since the early 1990s, a number of journals have appeared which deal with specific areas of law. The New Zealand Business Law Quarterly first appeared in 1993, followed by various others, including Human Rights Law and Practice in 1995, the New Zealand Journal of Taxation Law and Policy in 1994, and the New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law and Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence in 1997. Specialization in law journals is clearly on the rise, and some, at least, think that specialized journals can better serve the profession.[25] Nevertheless, the “generalist” university law reviews continue to serve scholarly, educational, and public relations ideals, and it is probably safe to say that they are here for good.
As a publication, the Waikato Law Review lies part-way between the American and English conceptions of a law review. In length and style, most articles are closer to the English approach: the 490 pages and 4800 footnotes of one US article is palpably inconceivable in the Waikato publication.[26] The Review is edited by faculty rather than students, and many of the articles are written to serve the profession. However, the Waikato Law Review also shares some common ground with US publications. For one, it is a university law review rather than a more general publication.[27] Furthermore, the Review has not shied away from interdisciplinary scholarship. Among the pages of the Review are articles written by sociologists and economists as well as law graduates.[28]
The Waikato LLB was specially designed to fulfil three objectives: to provide a professional legal education which would allow its graduates to practise law; to teach law in its social, economic and political contexts; and to develop a bicultural approach to legal education.[29] This section will look at how the Waikato Law Review has fulfilled these goals. The choice of topics and the emphasis placed upon certain matters is necessarily selective. Nonetheless, the articles discussed should give some idea of how the Waikato Law Review helps to serve the pedagogical goals of the school.
One of the key objectives for the Waikato law degree was to provide a professional legal education providing for those who wish to practise law.[30] But professionalism is not solely evident in the curriculum. One of the ways in which the Waikato Law Review has exhibited professionalism is by publishing doctrinal scholarship. In general terms, doctrinal scholarship emphasises legal doctrine, and is generally designed to serve – or at least be useful to – the legal profession. For example, a case note which criticises aspects of a particular decision may later be used to encourage judges to overturn or distinguish that decision. Longer articles which examine bodies of law as a whole can help to give coherence to seemingly incoherent fields.
A considerable number of doctrinal articles have appeared in the Waikato Law Review. There have been case notes, such as Peter Fitzsimons’comment on Securities Commission v R E Jones,[31] Trish O’Sullivan’s appraisal of Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth,[32] and Ruth Wilson’s critique of Fortex Group Ltd v Macintosh.[33] Each has analysed one particular decision (or series of decisions in appealed cases) in terms of what it adds to existing law, whether the decision fits in with existing law, and whether the decision is a good one. There have also been longer studies of legal doctrine, extending beyond a single case to wider fields of analysis. Winnie Chan’s article on “Land as Trading Stock”, for example, discussed a number of cases and proposed legislative reforms.[34] Wendy Ball’s commentary on evidence reform similarly looked at both statutes and cases in order to describe a body of law and then suggested reform.[35] More recently, Noel Cox and Joel Manyam have analysed elements of succession and taxation law respectively.[36]
Matters of professionalism, curriculum and scholarship come together in the McCaw Lewis Chapman Advocacy Contest. Within the Waikato Law School, professionalism is instilled in students in a number of ways, and one of these is an advocacy component in the compulsory Dispute Resolution course. Since 1995, the winning entry in the Contest (an offshoot of the course) has been printed in the Review. The first three examples of these were all arguments about key legal issues, such as the role of the Privy Council and the uses of alternative dispute resolution methods.[37] Since 1998, the emphasis has been on a more focussed (though perhaps more practical) form of advocacy, where the writer imagines himself or herself as counsel for an appellate decision, and presents an argument accordingly.[38]
The impetus to develop a bicultural approach to law (and legal education) was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the Waikato Law School. It should come as no surprise, then, that articles by Maori and on Maori legal issues have been a staple of the Review. To begin with, the subtitle of the Review is “Taumauri”. In the first issue, editor Peter Spiller noted that this meant “to think with care and caution, to deliberate on matters constructively and analytically”. Spiller’s first introduction went on to state that the Review “cherishes the goal of biculturalism”.[39]
Both Maori and Pakeha have written in the field. Among Pakeha, examples include Paul Havemann’s article on Maori rights and Pakeha duties in the first Review. This canvassed a number of “paradigms” present in Treaty discourse, illustrating how easy it was for people to talk past each other.[40] In 1994, Sir Robin Cooke’s Harkness Henry Lecture discussed the “challenge” of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence,[41] and former Dean and current Attorney-General Margaret Wilson wrote about constitutional change for Maori.[42]
Contributions on Maori issues by Maori have been more numerous. Annie Mikaere has written about the effects of colonisation upon Maori women,[43] and Stephanie Milroy’s article on Maori women and domestic violence included an interesting discussion on methodology in research which also gave weight to the nature and effects of Pakeha colonisation.[44] Issues for Maori women have also been discussed in articles by Leah Whiu and Linda Te Aho.[45]
Not all the articles by Maori focussed on women’s issues. In the 2001 Review, Leah Whiu, a former student and now a Lecturer at the School, published an article arguing that the school – and one could possibly add the Review – should not get complacent about the fulfilment of biculturalism. Whiu made a number of critical comments about the “biculturalism” of former Dean Margaret Wilson, suggesting that Wilson interpreted biculturalism as “accommodation” of Maori concerns rather than real change.[46] But Whiu did not think biculturalism was something to be abandoned. Rather, she wrote, “the bicultural commitment and its accompanying challenges continue to provide a way forward”.[47]
It is difficult to single out any particular articles as evidence of a “law in context” approach: almost every article published in the Review would provide a good example. Nonetheless, some articles are more explicitly about law or jurisprudence than others. And some articles are more explicitly written for scholarly readers. To put it another way, “law in context” articles can be seen to serve the academy rather than the practicing profession.
Of course, “law in context” can mean different things to different people. In discussing his role in the Waikato Law School’s pedagogical framework, Paul Havemann has written that “[t]he essence of teaching ‘law in context’ for critical literacy is ‘to ground all knowledge of social life in human history, culture and relations of power’”. He went on to observe that not everyone understands “context” the same way.[48]
This is indeed the case. Another way of understanding “law in context” could be to see it as emphasising less a critical perspective than simply a broad approach to the legal system. Kevin Glover’s 2000 article on the Privy Council, for example, is clearly not doctrinal scholarship because it is about a “big picture” issue rather than any specific point of law.[49] The same could be said for many of the Harkness Henry lectures. They are about legal issues rather than points of law and, as such, represent something of a “law in context” approach.[50]
Still another way of seeing “law in context” was suggested by the first editorial. There, Peter Spiller emphasised the importance the Review “attached to examining the law in the context of its historical, social, economic and political background”.[51] It is this conception of “law and context” that features in nearly every Waikato Law Review article, from the narrowly doctrinal to the deeply theoretical. This may to some be stretching the meaning of the term, but it is also probably the most pervasive kind of “law in context” scholarship in the Review.
One of the most important features of the Waikato Law School calendar is the annual Harkness Henry lecture, delivered by a prominent New Zealand legal figure on a topic of New Zealand jurisprudence. The first of these published in the Review[52] was delivered by Sir Robin Cooke, then President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal.[53] Here, Cooke traced the history of the Treaty in the Court of Appeal before commenting on more recent cases, including (perhaps most importantly) the New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General “lands” case.[54] Cooke concluded that “[t]he challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two-fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect”.[55]
The Harkness Henry lectures are often interesting for the insights that they provide into the attitudes of leading legal figures. In his lecture on private interest litigation, for example, Sir Ivor Richardson commented:
Judges make law and are expected to make law and in doing so necessarily weigh public policy considerations. ...[t]he notion that the common law is a seamless web is as unrealistic as the view that on their appointment judges obtain the password to the correct common law answer.[56]
In her address on the judicial function, then newly appointed High Court Judge (and now Chief Justice) Sian Elias advocated the expansion of administrative law to meet human rights needs.[57] In 1997, then Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys, noting that constitutional law “is inextricable intertwined with politics”, discussed his role in the formation of the National–New Zealand First coalition government.[58] Court of Appeal judge and former Law Comissioner Sir Kenneth Keith wrote on international law in the New Zealand context, calling particularly for LLB courses to address international developments.[59] Solicitor-General John McGrath examined a number of key recent constitutional issues, with an emphasis on the important role played by conventions in New Zealand’s unwritten constitution.[60] McGrath, now a judge of the Court of Appeal, wrote of the Alamein Kopu affair that:
there is scope for the view that as a matter of principle the right of a person to act as a Member of Parliament raises an issue that the courts rather than Parliament should resolve. ... Whether an elected legislator remains qualified to sit in a legislative house is ... inherently a question that calls for an independent decision according to law.[61]
More recently, Thomas J of the Court of Appeal endeavoured to find a “conscience” in the common law.[62] He suggested that “[t]here is a sense in which the law’s conscience is larger than the judges”,[63] and that “the notion of an altruistic premise underlying the law cannot be debunked”.[64] Governor-General Dame Sylvia Cartwright discussed the increasing importance of human rights on both the domestic and international legal stage.[65] Tipping J examined the topical issue of balancing freedom of speech with journalistic responsibility and the need to protect reputations.[66]
Read together, the Harkness Henry lectures represent a substantial corpus of work on New Zealand law. The wide range of topics, including jurisprudence, international law, public law, the Treaty of Waitangi, and private law issues, and the prestige and experience of the speakers, have ensured that every edition of the Review has started with a scholarly high note.
Given that the Waikato Law School was forged in debates about the role, purpose and ideals of legal education, it is hardly surprising that articles on such issues have been a regular feature of the Review. Indeed, when looking over the first nine issues of the Review, the prominence of matters of legal pedagogy is inescapable.
The first, by the then Dean and current Attorney-General Margaret Wilson, was on the establishment of the Waikato Law School and its LLB degree.[67] Wilson’s unique inside view provides a useful background to the School, and her conclusion set strong goals for both the School and the Review:
The challenge for the Waikato Law School is to play a relevant and constructive role in the development of a New Zealand jurisprudence, that reflects not only the current economic policy, but that is inclusive of the social and cultural values and experiences of all people within the New Zealand community.[68]
Immediately following this article was one by two lecturers and a student at Waikato on teaching law in context, particularly from feminist and bicultural perspectives.[69] Teaching practice was also a theme in Kaye Turner’s article in the next year’s Review,[70] and the role of students in the construction of an appropriate (or inclusive) legal pedagogy was developed further in the same issue.[71]
Paul Havemann contributed an article on the importance of context in law studies in the next edition of the Review. Havemann gave considerable attention to the design of the “Law and Societies” course for the first year LLB curriculum.[72] Peter Jones discussed student writing as well.[73]
It is perhaps a reflection of the increasing maturity the School was experiencing that legal education matters were ignored for the next few years. In the 2000 Review, however, Dorothy and Peter Spiller examined the need for diverse educational environments, such as the Waikato Law School, “to be responsive to and respect different identities”.[74] The Spillers’ discussion was in many ways complementary to Havemann’s, as it emphasises the curriculum and teaching styles of another first-year law course, Legal Systems.[75]
Matters were brought full circle in 2001. As mentioned above, Leah Whiu, who had earlier contributed to the Review while a student and was now a Lecturer, offered criticism of Margaret Wilson’s bicultural vision for the School.[76] Express reference was made to the article which began the first Review,[77] and, with Wilson now departed to Parliament, it was seen to be worth reflecting on how the Review articles reflected her vision.
Articles about legal history and comparative law have been a common feature of the Review. Following the notion that “[t]he past is a foreign country”,[78] these two topics have been grouped together in this section. Of course, many articles in the Review have drawn on elements of history or international comparison: as such, only articles specifically directed to these topics are discussed in this section.
Peter Spiller wrote in the initial Review about the work of the Court of Appeal in its early years as a “separate” court.[79] Drawing on interviews, cases, and commentary, Spiller showed how the foundations of the modern Court of Appeal were laid in its first 18 years.[80] A more recent period in New Zealand’s legal history was examined in Peter Fitzsimons’ article on the Securities Commission.[81] Comparative law made an appearance in Chris Cunneen and Julie Stubbs’ article in the 1996 special issue on domestic violence.[82] Peter Spiller followed this in 1997 with a comparison of small claims bodies in South Africa and New Zealand.[83] In 1998 an article by Anna Kingsbury considered the similarities and differences between Australian and New Zealand law in regard to funding the remediation of chemically contaminated land.[84]
This outline gives a picture of some years of legal history followed by several of comparative law. In more recent years, however, the two have often stood side by side, reflecting a growing interest in placing law in these kind of contexts. Richard Dawson’s analysis of “artificial selection” in colonial New Zealand drew on aspects of economics and jurisprudence as well as legal history.[85] The article by Michael Spisto and Fran Wright in the same year followed Spiller’s example of comparing elements of New Zealand and South African law.[86] In 2001, Derek Round took a biographical look at former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Henry Mason,[87] closely followed in the pages of the Review by another article using South African law to shed light on options for New Zealand.[88]
The 2002 Review continues the trend developed in previous issues. Peter Spiller discusses the recent judicial career of Lord Cooke, probably New Zealand’s foremost jurist.[89] This is recent history, but legal history nonetheless. Doug Tennent takes us to Papua New Guinea for a look at damages issues in subsistence-based communities,[90] and Julia Tolmie draws on various other jurisdictions in her analysis of the law relating to battered defendants.[91] These articles, like those in preceding years, show how comparative law and legal history can help our understanding of New Zealand law today.
As noted above, the Waikato Law Review is New Zealand’s newest university law review. As such, it has published fewer articles than New Zealand’s other university law reviews and has had less opportunity to be cited in courts or in other scholarship. Nevertheless, judges and academics from outside the Law School have relied on articles from the Review from time to time. This section discusses some of these occasions.
The Review has been cited in the High Court. In the New Zealand Public Service Association case,[92] Hammond J made reference to Sian Elias’ Harkness Henry lecture in the 1996 Review, where she spoke in favour of a “hard look” doctrine in administrative law. Hammond J also favoured such a doctrine, and it is entirely appropriate that this case was heard in Hamilton, the home of the Review. Another occasion on which the Waikato Law Review formed part of a High Court decision was in the Fatupaito case,[93] where O’Regan J referred to Tompkins J’s 1994 Stace Hammond Grace Lecture in Commercial Law.[94]
Items from the Waikato Law Review have also attracted attention outside the courtroom. Articles on family law and domestic violence, for example, have been cited in Canadian[95] and Australian[96] law reviews. Within New Zealand, the Review has been referred to in such publications as the recent Legal Method in New Zealand,[97] as well as a number of other books[98] and law review articles.[99]
The Waikato Law Review represents something of a hybrid of American, English, and New Zealand university law review models. It continues to serve the School’s pedagogical goals of professionalism, biculturalism, and law in context, though the precise nature of these terms remains contested. The Review has also played an important role in presenting scholarship on a wide range of topics, notably New Zealand jurisprudence (through the Harkness Henry lectures), legal education, and legal history/comparative law issues.
It is to be expected that the Review of the future will continue in the tradition already established. Doctrinal scholarship is unlikely to disappear, as the Review continues to serve the profession. The more academically-oriented articles are unlikely to disappear either. The Review will probably continue to publish articles from both within and outside the School, all the time providing a voice for the School and its values. Citation of the Review is also likely to increase as both the body of work published in the Review and the stature of the Review itself increase.
In the first editorial, Gerald Bailey, then the Chancellor of the University of Waikato, commented that “this publication will, I am sure, take its place as an important contribution to New Zealand’s legal literature”.[100] In the tenth year of publication of the Waikato Law Review, there can be no doubt that in this the School has succeeded, and the volume in your hands is a testament to this success.
[*] BA (Waikato), final year LLB Hons student, University of Waikato.
[1] Fletcher, “Two Modes of Legal Thought” (1981) 90 Yale Law Journal 970.
[2] See eg the bibliography compiled by Scott (2001) 39 Alberta Law Review 690.
[3] Ziff, “The Canadian Law Review Experience: Introduction to the Symposium” (2001) 39 Alberta Law Review 611.
[4] See eg “Symposium: The Canadian Law Review Experience” (2001) 39 Alberta Law Review 611-694.
[5] The Victoria University of Wellington Law Review.
[6] Bailey, “Foreword” (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review.
[7] Swigert and Bruce, “The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviews” (1985) 36 Hastings Law Journal 739, 779. See also Noonan, “Law Reviews” (1995) 47 Stanford Law Review 1117, which describes law reviews as “a necessary element of every respectable law school”.
[8] See Cramton, “’The Most Remarkable Institution’: The American Law Review” (1986) 36 Journal of Legal Education 1, 2.
[9] This is the American Law Register, which survives as the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the “oldest continuously published legal periodical in America” (Swigert and Bruce, supra note 7, at 757).
[10] Ibid, 778.
[11] Cramton, supra note 8, at 3-4.
[12] See Swigert and Bruce, supra note7, at 779.
[13] See Rodell, “Goodbye to Law Reviews” (1936) 23 Virginia Law Review 38, 38. At one point, Rodell called law reviews “spinach” (at 45).
[14] Edwards, “The Growing Disjuncture Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession” (1992) 91 Michigan Law Review 34, 36.
[15] Ibid, 34.
[16] Zenoff, “I Have Seen the Enemy and They Are Us” (1986) 36 Journal of Legal Education 21. See also Lasson, “Scholarship Amok: Excesses in the Pursuit of Truth and Tenure” (1990) 103 Harvard Law Review 926.
[17] Martinez, “Babies, Bathwater, and Law Reviews” (1995) 47 Stanford Law Review 1139, 1145.
[18] Twining, W Blackstone’s Tower: The English Law School (1994) 110.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Swigert and Bruce, supra note7, at 763 (footnote 205).
[21] See Twining, supra note 18, at 110-111.
[22] See eg Murphy and Roberts, “Introduction” (1987) 50 Modern Law Review 677
[23] McGechan, “Foreword” (1953) 1 Victoria University College Law Review 3.
[24] Aikman, “Preface” (1968) 5 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review.
[25] See eg Ryder, “The Past and Future of Canadian Generalist Law Journals” (2001) 39 Alberta Law Review 625, 636-637.
[26] The article in question is Jacobs, “An Analysis of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (1987) 32 New York Law School Law Review 209, cited in Rhode, “Legal Scholarship” (2002) 115 Harvard Law Review 1327, 1334-1335.
[27] Note, however, that a number of English law reviews have, traditionally at least, had strong connections with a university law school. See Twining, supra note18, at 110.
[28] See eg West-Newman, “Reading Hate Speech from the Bottom in Aotearoa: Subjectivity, Empathy, Cultural Difference” [2001] WkoLawRw 9; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 231; and Dawson, “Artificial Selection in Colonial New Zealand” [1999] WkoLawRw 4; (1999) 7 Waikato Law Review 73.
[29] Wilson, “The Making of a New Legal Education in New Zealand: Waikato Law School” [1993] WkoLawRw 3; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 1, 4. While the Auckland, Victoria, Canterbury and Otago LLB degrees consist of an intermediate year (a number of non-law papers, plus Legal Systems), a second year of compulsory law papers, and third and fourth years consisting mainly of optional papers, the Waikato LLB has no intermediate year, includes law and non-law papers in both the first and second years of the degree, and has a number of compulsory papers in its third year.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Fitzsimons, “Case Note” [1993] WkoLawRw 9; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 165.
[32] O’Sullivan, “Case Note” [1996] WkoLawRw 20; (1996) 4(2) Waikato Law Review 154.
[33] Wilson, “Case Note” [1998] WkoLawRw 6; (1998) 6 Waikato Law Review 127.
[34] Chan, “Land as Trading Stock” [1994] WkoLawRw 4; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 69.
[35] Ball, “The Law of Evidence relating to Child Victims of Sexual Abuse” [1995] WkoLawRw 4; (1995) 3 Waikato Law Review 63.
[36] Cox, “Conditional Gifts and Freedom of Testation” [2001] WkoLawRw 2; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 24; and Manyam, “Extensive Powers of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue” [2001] WkoLawRw 5; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 91.
[37] See Wilkins, “Judicial Legislation in New Zealand and the Privy Council’s Role” [1995] WkoLawRw 3; (1995) 3 Waikato Law Review 57; North, “ADR: Appropriate Dispute Resolution?” [1996] WkoLawRw 15; (1996) 4(2) Waikato Law Review 56; and Baker, “Legislated Court Authority to refer to Mediation of Arbitration?” [1997] WkoLawRw 4; (1997) 5 Waikato Law Review 65.
[38] See eg Peterson, “R v Rongonui” [2000] WkoLawRw 10; (2000) 8 Waikato Law Review 167; Usher, “Harley v McDonald” [2001] WkoLawRw 12; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 315.
[39] Spiller, “Editor’s Introduction” (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review.
[40] Havemann, “’The Pakeha Constitutional Revolution?’ Five Perspectives on Maori Rights and Pakeha Duties” [1993] WkoLawRw 5; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 53.
[41] Cooke, “The Challenge of Treaty of Waitangi Jurisprudence” [1994] WkoLawRw 1; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 1.
[42] Wilson, “The Reconfiguration of New Zealand’s Constitutional Institutions: The Transformation of Tino Rangatiratanga into Political Reality” [1997] WkoLawRw 2; (1997) 5 Waikato Law Review 17.
[43] Mikaere, “Maori Women: Caught in the Contradictions of a Colonised Reality” [1994] WkoLawRw 6; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 125.
[44] Milroy, “Maori Women and Domestic Violence: the Methodology of Research and the Maori Perspective” [1996] WkoLawRw 4; (1996) 4(1) Waikato Law Review 58.
[45] Whiu, “A Maori Woman’s Experience of Feminist Legal Education in Aotearoa” [1994] WkoLawRw 8; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 161; and Te Aho, “EEO for Maori Women in Maori Organisations” [2001] WkoLawRw 8; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 187.
[46] Whiu, “Waikato Law School’s Bicultural Vision – Anei Te Huarahi Hei Wero I A Tatou Katoa” [2001] WkoLawRw 10; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 265, 286.
[47] Ibid, 292.
[48] Havemann, “’Law in Context’- Taking Context Seriously” [1995] WkoLawRw 8; (1995) 3 Waikato Law Review 137, 158-159.
[49] Glover, “Severing the Ties that Bind: The Development of a Distinctive New Zealand Jurisprudence” [2000] WkoLawRw 2; (2000) 8 Waikato Law Review 25.
[50] See eg McGrath “The Crown, the Parliament and the Government” [1999] WkoLawRw 1; (1999) 7 Waikato Law Review 1; and Cartwright, “Some Human Rights Issues” [2001] WkoLawRw 1; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 1.
[51] Spiller, supra note 39.
[52] Note that this was not the first lecture delivered; that honour belongs to Thomas Gault J who spoke on “The Development of a New Zealand Jurisprudence” (1992).
[53] Cooke, supra note 41.
[54] [1987] 1 NZLR 641.
[55] Cooke, supra note 41, at 11.
[56] Richardson, “Public Interest Litigation” [1995] WkoLawRw 1; (1995) 3 Waikato Law Review 1.
[57] Elias, “‘Hard Look’ and the Judicial Function” [1996] WkoLawRw 3; (1996) 4 Waikato Law Review 1, 22.
[58] Hardie Boys, “Continuity and Change: The 1996 General Election and the Role of the Governor-General” [1997] WkoLawRw 1; (1997) 5 Waikato Law Review 1, 2 and generally.
[59] Keith, “The Impact of International Law on New Zealand Law” [1998] WkoLawRw 1; (1998) 6 Waikato Law Review 1, 35.
[60] McGrath, supra note 50.
[61] Ibid, 10.
[62] Thomas, “The Conscience of the Law” [2000] WkoLawRw 1; (2000) 8 Waikato Law Review 1, 3.
[63] Ibid, 22.
[64] Ibid, 23.
[65] Cartwright, supra note 50.
[66] Tipping, “Journalistic Responsibility, Freedom of Speech and Protection of Reputation – Striking the Right Balance Between Citizens and the Media” [2002] WkoLawRw 1; (2002) 10 Waikato Law Review 1.
[67] Wilson, supra note 29.
[68] Ibid, ?
[69] Seuffert, Milroy and Boyd, “Developing and Teaching an Introduction to Law in Context: Surrogacy and Baby M” [1993] WkoLawRw 4; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 27.
[70] Turner, “Teaching Professional Responsibility: The Waikato Experience” [1994] WkoLawRw 7; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 151.
[71] Whiu, supra note 46.
[72] Havemann, supra note 48.
[73] Jones, “A Little Something about Writing” [1995] WkoLawRw 10; (1995) 3 Waikato Law Review 181.
[74] Spiller and Spiller, “Teaching Law in the Context of Student Diversity” [2000] WkoLawRw 6; (2000) 8 Waikato Law Review 106.
[75] Ibid, 113-116.
[76] Whiu, supra note 46.
[77] Ibid, 274 at note 45.
[78] Hartley, LP The Go-Between (1953) 9: “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there”.
[79] Spiller, “Judges at Work: The New Zealand Court of Appeal (1958-1976)” [1993] WkoLawRw 6; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 79.
[80] Ibid, 106.
[81] Fitzsimons, “The New Zealand Securities Commission: The Rise and Fall of a Law Reform Body” [1994] WkoLawRw 5; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 87.
[82] Cunneen and Stubbs, “Violence Against Filipino Women in Australia: Race, Class and Gender” [1996] WkoLawRw 7; (1996) 4(1) Waikato Law Review 131.
[83] Spiller, “The Small Claims System: A Comparison of the South African Small Claims Court and the New Zealand Disputes Tribunal” [1997] WkoLawRw 3; (1997) 5 Waikato Law Review 35.
[84] Kingsbury, “Funding the Remediation of Contaminated Land in Australia and New Zealand: The Problem of Orphan Sites” [1998] WkoLawRw 2; (1998) 6 Waikato Law Review 37.
[85] Dawson, supra note 28.
[86] Spisto and Wright, (Justifiable) Homicide Whilst Effecting an Arrest: When is this Lawful? A Comparison Between the South African and New Zealand Systems of Law” [1999] WkoLawRw 6; (1999) 7 Waikato Law Review 147.
[87] Round, “Henry Greathead Rex Mason KC CMG: An Outstanding Law Reformer” [2001] WkoLawRw 6; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 131.
[88] Spisto and Samujh, “Close Corporations in South Africa: A Viable Option for New Zealand Small Business Corporate Law?” [2001] WkoLawRw 7; (2001) 9 Waikato Law Review 153.
[89] Spiller, “Lord Cooke of Thorndon: The New Zealand Dimension” (2002) 10 Waikato Law Review ?.
[90] Tennent, “Law in Context: The Awarding of Damages to People Living a Part Subsistence Village Lifestyle in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea” (2002) 10 Waikato Law Review ?
[91] Tolmie, “Battered Defendants and the Criminal Defences to Murder – Lessons from Overdeas” (2002) 10 Waikato Law Review ?
[92] New Zealand Public Service Association Inc v Hamilton City Council [1996] NZHC 1686; [1997] 1 NZLR 30, 34.
[93] Fatupaito v Bates [2001] NZHC 401; [2001] 3 NZLR 386, 399-400.
[94] Tompkins, “Directing the Directors: The Duties of Directors under the Companies Act 1993” [1994] WkoLawRw 2; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 13. It should be noted that O’Regan J declined to follow Tompkins J’s interpretation of s 135 of the Companies Act 1993.
[95] Bala, “Spousal Abuse and Children of Divorce: A Differentiated Approach” (1996) 13 Canadian Journal of Family Law 215, 236 note 44, citing Busch and Robertson, “I Didn’t Know Just How Far I Could Fight: Contextualising the Bristol Enquiry” [1994] WkoLawRw 3; (1994) 2 Waikato Law Review 41.
[96] Seuffert “Domestic Violence, Discourses of Romantic Love, and Complex Personhood in the Law” [1999] MelbULawRw 8; (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review 211, 213 note 14, citing Busch and Robertson, “’What’s Love Got To Do With It?’ An Analysis of an Intervention Approach to Domestic Violence” [1993] WkoLawRw 7; (1993) 1 Waikato Law Review 109. See also note 27 of Seuffert’s article for further citations.
[97] See Fisher, “New Zealand Legal Method: Influences and Consequences” in Bigwood, R (ed) Legal Method in New Zealand (2001) 25, 70 n 194, citing Glover, supra note 49; Keith, “Sources of Law, Especially in Statutory Interpretation” in Bigwood, ibid, 94 note 76, citing Keith, supra note 59.
[98] See eg Dawson, R The Treaty of Waitangi and the Control of Language (2001) 247, citing Havemann, supra note 44; and Spiller, P, Finn, J, and Boast, R A New Zealand Legal History (2nd ed, 2001) 207 note 136, citing Havemann, supra note 40, and 228 note 266, citing Spiller, supra note 39.
[99] See eg Upston-Hooper, “Slaying the Leviathan: Critical Jurisprudence and the Treaty of Waitangi” (1998) 28 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 683, n 1, citing Havemann, supra note 40; and Dunworth, “Public International Law” [2000] New Zealand Law Review 217, 224, citing Keith, supra note 59.
[100] Bailey, supra note 6.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/WkoLawRw/2002/3.html