Legal Positivism and Australian Law

Paper Summary:

This paper looks at how Australian law is very closely linked with legal positivism, since it revolves around the concept of power. It explains that the sovereign order is treated as the final word, which cannot be altered or amended. While the same is the case in the United States, the writer points out that there is some flexibility towards modern interpretations of law. The United States gives its judiciary enough freedom to interpret law according to the circumstances. The same is, however, missing from the Australian legal system where modern interpretations are often met with disapproval. It concludes that this is the essential difference between legal systems of the two countries, a difference that has turned Australian law into a more rigid and positivistic form of law.

From the Paper:

"A law must be resistant to change for that is the whole purpose of implementing laws. However they must also be flexible enough to allow modern interpretation, which is unfortunately not the case in Australia and this, is what makes Australian constitutional law positivist in nature. In other words, when a law is so rigid that it cannot allow modern interpretation and fails to keep pace with changing times, it is said to be positivistic in nature. In such laws, the interpretation is rigidly limited and the original law cannot be molded to suit modern conditions and circumstances. While then United States constitutional law is also highly resistant to change, it is nonetheless flexible enough to allow Supreme and High Courts to seek modern interpretation. However that is not the case in Australia where constitutional law is the final word of authority and to allow the law to keep pace with changing times is seen as a threat to the constitution. A very apt example of this kind of rigidity of law can be seen in Bulun Bulun case of 1999.


In this case, the copyright Law of Australia was under consideration and it was found that the rigid interpretation of the law was closely connected with legal positivism. The painter John Bulun sought Court's help in combining customary law with the Copyright Act. Mr. Bulun Bulun wanted one of his paintings "Magpie Geese and Water Lilies at the Waterhole", to be seen as a work of co-authorship. He wanted his entire community to be the owner of this property since it was more in line with his customs and cultural beliefs.
Judge Von Doussa however refused to combine customary law with Copyright Law and decided to stay with strict interpretation of the law thus taking a positivistic approach as Bowrey (2001) explains: It is difficult to ascertain whether or not von Doussa grasped the cultural implications that flow from his endorsement of these precedents about joint authorship. At key points in the decision closure to consideration of the indigenous point of view was achieved by using legal positivist interpretative practice. He identified the appropriate legal rule concerning joint authorship without reference to any discourse about the meaning of the terminology. Copyright law is "entirely a creature of statute"."

More papers on Legal Positivism and Australian Law:

• Essay # 31169 : "Artificial Reproduction and Australian Law"
• Comparison Essay # 63731 : "Legal Positivism vs. Natural Law Theory"
• Analytical Essay # 149537 : "Legal Positivism"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: