Australian vs. US Legal Systems
Australia is a commonwealth nation and follows the common law legal system. The Australian legal system is based on the protection of common held beliefs and values of the community in addition to upholding the democratic principles. Over time, the Australian legal system has developed in many aspects that include customs, rules, common law, and customary law among others. The Commonwealth of Australia is ruled under a federated constitutional monarchy whereby powers are divided among the territories, states, and the federal government (Marcus, and Waye, 2010). With the strong common law legal system, the aspect of separation of powers lies between the judicial and the executive/legislative arms of government.
Under the Australian common law system, parliamentary legislation and case law provides sources of Australian law. The case law depends on a precedent legal system where prior binding decisions are important in making decisions. The Australian constitution, the common law, and legislations are the major sources of law in the Australian legal system. It is based on a bicameral federal parliamentary system except Queensland that has a single parliamentary house. In terms of the court system, the Australian legal system has both territory/state and federal court systems (Marcus, and Waye, 2010). The Australian legal system has tribunals at both the state/territory and the federal system. Tribunals play an important role in reviewing government decisions or adjudicating particular disputes or facts in decisions.
Comparison between the US and the Australian Legal System
An analysis of the United States and the Australian legal system shows an element of similarity in terms of government. Both legal systems are governed using a federal system of government. This shows that governing power is shared between the state and national governments. Another major element of similarity is the bicameral system that consists of the Senate and the elected House of Representatives. The nature of enacting laws is also similar. The written constitution defines the rules of governing each country (Bonsignore, and Katsh, 2005). The US and Australian constitutions contains information of the three governing branches; the executive comprising of high-ranking decision makers in the government, the legislature which is made up of the law makers, and the judiciary comprising of the federal courts (Bonsignore, and Katsh, 2005). In both legal systems, the election process forms a fundamental part for promoting democracy. US laws and Australian laws define the nature and frequency of elections in the two legal systems.
Differences in the governing system between the United States and the Australian legal systems is the aspect of a republic in the US legal system and the constitutional monarchy in Australia. These two structures shows significant levels of differences in the heads of state and the overall governing structure (Marcus, and Waye, 2010). The Australian system of politics is considered much of a hybrid of the British and US systems. It draws the executive and parliamentary aspects from the English legal system. Equally, it draws the federal system of politics from the United States legal system.
Differences also exist between the constitutions in Australia and the United States. The legislature is known as the Congress in the US legal system and it comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress makes laws while the executive that is headed by the President administers the law. The judiciary interprets the law with the Supreme Court being the highest level of the Judiciary (Bonsignore, and Katsh, 2005). The Australian constitution has a similar formation but has limited separation of powers. This can be attributed to the overlapping roles between the Executive and the parliament.
References
Bonsignore, J. J., and Katsh, E. (2005). Before the law: an introduction to the legal process. Houghton Mifflin Co.
Marcus, P., and Waye, V. (2010). Australia and the United States: Two common criminal justice systems uncommonly at odds. Part 2. Tulane Journal of International and comparative law. 18(2): 334-401
