澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和司法权的划分
政治国家的三权分立
政治国家的三权分立在一个政治国家中，为了维护公共利益，保护人民权益，一般都会将国家的权力划分为三个独立的部门：立法权、行政权和司法权，这就是著名的三权分立原则。
三权分立是一种政治机制，旨在确保政府各部门的权力相互制衡，避免滥用权力和一人专制的情况发生，从而实现政府的有效运作和公平正义。
本文将探讨政治国家的三权分立原则及其重要性。
一、立法权立法权是指制定和修改法律的权力，通常由国家的议会或立法机关负责。
立法过程是政府与国民互动的重要环节之一，通过讨论、辩论和投票，法律得以形成。
立法权的核心目标是保障公众利益，推动社会进步和国家发展。
立法权的相关机构在政策制定过程中起着至关重要的作用。
立法机关代表了人民的意愿和权益，负责制定法律和法规，规范社会行为，保护公民权益，维护社会秩序。
立法权的独立性保证了立法机构的自治和公正性，不受其他部门的干预和控制。
二、行政权行政权是指执行法律和管理国家事务的权力，通常由行政部门和政府机构担当。
行政权是政府维护社会和谐稳定的基石，主要职责是管理公共事务、提供公共服务和保障国家利益。
行政权的运作需要高效的组织和协调能力，确保国家的正常运转。
行政部门负责制定和执行具体政策，保障人民福祉，管理国家经济和社会事务。
行政机关的独立性是确保行政权能够独立管理事务、提供公正服务的保障。
三、司法权司法权是指审判和解决法律争议的权力，由独立的司法机关负责。
司法权的核心目标是实现公正和法律平等，保障公民权利的不可侵犯。
司法机关独立运作，对于确保法律的公正适用至关重要。
司法机构负责根据法律规定审理案件，对争议进行公正和客观的判断。
司法权独立于其他两个权力部门，意味着司法机构不受政府和行政部门的任何干预，保证司法裁判的公正性和中立性。
三权分立的重要性三权分立原则的重要性凸显在以下几个方面：1. 制衡权力：通过将权力分散至不同部门，可以互相制衡，避免某个权力部门过度集中权力，从而减少滥用权力和腐败的可能性。
澳大利法律制度：三权分立
Week 1 (15 October)Topic 1: Nature of LawTopic 2 (Part 1): The Australian Legal SystemGibson & Fraser Chapters 1 to 3Please note: Workshops start in week 2CHAPTER 1: THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM (PART 1)This chapter covers the following topics:∙What is a legal system and what are our sources of law?∙Legislation – its origins and functions.∙Procedure for making laws in parliament.∙Delegated legislation – its functions, advantages and disadvantages.∙Common law – its origins and functions.∙Equity – its origins and functions.∙Civil and Criminal Law – the differences in principle and procedure.∙English law in AustraliaLEGAL SYSTEMA “legal system” may be defined as the totality of laws that regulate a legally organised community. The Australian legal system is described as a “common law” system because it is based on the English system where case law (or common law) was traditionally the main source of law. Other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, and the United States also have systems of law influenced by the English common law system. SOURCES OF LAWIn this part of the course we answer the question “where do our laws come from?” In other words, what are the sources of our law in Australia?The sources of law in Australia (and England) include:1.Legislation or parliament-made law (including delegated or subordinate legislation).mon law or judge-made law (including principles of equity).LEGISLATIONLegislation refers to laws made by parliament. Other terms for legislation include statutes and Acts of Parliament. For example, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity CommissionAct 1986is an Act of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament. Each of the States in Australia has a parliament which is able to make laws to regulate matters within the State. To appreciate legislation as a source of law it is necessary to trace the origins of parliament in the English system. In 1066 William of Normandy took over the throne in England (after the famous Battle of Hastings). He took control of all the land in his kingdom granting it to his Knights in return for their services in battle. The Knights would then grant the land to rich nobles or lords who paid for their right to use the land. These wealthy landowners then rented out the land to farmers and peasants who would be required to work the land to produce crops and raise animals for the benefit of their masters. This was the feudal system of land holding.To assist him in managing his Kingdom the King had a group of advisers – later to be called ministers. The King also met from time to time with his knights in the Great Council – later to be called the House of Lords.The representatives of the local districts also attended the Great Council; however, they met in a separate “house” of meeting area – later to be called the House of Commons.By the 13th century the Great Council became known as parliament. The king made laws (called legislation) on matters of importance to the representatives, in return for their assurance that the will of the king would be carried out, especially in raising taxes.By the 15th century the King was approving legislation made by parliament, however, the King was the ultimate or supreme law-maker –this is referred to as crown supremacy or sovereignty.Over the next couple of centuries Parliament attempted to claim for itself ultimate law-making power, however, various Kings still tried to exercise legislative power without parliament’s approval. Finally, in 1689, the king (James II) was forced to leave England and William and Mary of France invited to take the throne on condition that they recognised Parliament’s authority as supreme –this is referred to as parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty.Parliamentary SovereigntyParliamentary sovereignty is a central feature of England and Australia’s constitutional systems. It refers to the fact that the Crown is subject to the laws of parliament just as any other person. In England the Crown refers to Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen plays no active role in law-making because she is not an elected representative of the people. The Queen assents to a bill that has passed through both houses of parliament. This is a mere formality that converts a bill into an Act of parliament. In the exercise of her constitutional functions the Queen relies on the advice of the government ministers (who are also members of parliament).Australia inherited the same parliamentary system of representative government as the English. The Crown is represented in each State by the Governor of that State. The Governor-General represents the Crown at the Commonwealth or federal level. The State Governors and the Governor-General exercise similar constitutional powers to the Queenwithin the Australian legal system; however, these powers are always exercised on the advice of government ministers.Bi-cameral (two house) legislatureThe Commonwealth Parliament and the parliaments of the States are based on the English model, with some variations.The English Parliament at Westminster in London comprises two Houses or chambers. The Upper House is the House of Lords and consists of unelected members descended from wealthy and noble families. The Lower House is the House of Commons and consists of elected representatives of the people, including the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown and Opposition members.State parliamentsThe Upper House in all the States of Australia is called the Legislative Council. The Lower House is called the Legislative Assembly in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia. In South Australia and Tasmania it is called House of Assembly. In Queensland the one House is a Legislative Assembly. All Houses, both Upper and Lower, in each State are directly elected by the people of the State. The Lower House is the most powerful House –it controls finance and comprises the Premier, Treasurer and Ministers.Commonwealth (or federal) parliamentIn the federal system the Upper House is the Senate which represents the States and the Lower House is the House of Representatives. Representatives of both Houses are directly elected by the people. The House of Representatives represents the interests of the people of the Commonwealth at large. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and most of the other Government Ministers (who comprise the core of the government) sit in the House of Representatives.Process of law-making in parliamentThe process by which a law is made in parliament is called enactment.The procedure for passing statutes evolved over seven centuries in the English system. The proposal for an Act of parliament is the outcome of a policy decision that may be (a) an electoral promise (b) submitted by a minister (c) supported by a private member or (d) the result of a law reform commission or other inquiry.A proposal for a new law needs the support of Cabinet, which is the core representative of the political party that has the majority of seats in the lower house of parliament. Unless Cabinet makes a place for a proposed law (called a bill) it probably won’t be introduced into parliament. To decide what provisions should be included in a bill Cabinet will consult with relevant government departments, experts and other interested parties. This may also generate public discussion. Once the main outlines of a bill have been worked out it will be sent to the Office of the Parliamentary Council to be put in statute form. The bill is then ready to be introduced into parliament.The following includes a brief summary of the passage of a bill through parliament:∙The bill is initiated by the appropriate minister (usually in the lower house) by a motion for leave to introduce the bill.∙The first reading is a formal exercise where the title of the bill is read out. At this stage there is no debate, however, a date is fixed for the second reading.∙At the second reading the bill is debated upon in principle, although its details are not scrutinised at this stage. If it is not rejected it then goes on to the committee stage.∙The committee may be an actual committee or a “committee” constituted by the whole House. It is at this stage that the details of the bill are debated, clause by clause, and then the bill is “reported” back to the House, together with any amendments.∙At the third and final reading the bill is read as a whole and further debate may occur. The bill is then voted upon and if the majority of members vote for it then bill has been passed by the House.∙The bill then goes through the same procedures in the other House which is usually the Upper House. If the Upper House accepts the bill but makes its own amendments, these amendments have to be considered in the Lower House.∙Once the Bill has been passed by both Houses, it is ready to receive the royal assent.This is a formality that is completed by the Governor-General (Commonwealth) and Governors (States).∙Once assent has been given the bill becomes an Act of parliament to come into operation on a date proclaimed by the Governor-General or State Governor. Regulations (delegated legislation)Parliaments are not the only source of law-making. Society is regulated to an increasing extent by regulations, rules, ordinances and by-laws. Collectively known as delegated legislation these sources of law are made by public servants. This is made possible through the delegation by parliament of some of its law-making power under legislation. Within the Act parliament authorises a number of matters to be worked out by some other body or individual, such as the Governor (General)-in-Council, statutory authorities, local councils and government ministers.The reasons why parliament delegates some of its law-making powers may be summarised as follows:∙Time–parliament does not have the time to prescribe the details necessary to implement the general principles contained in many Acts of parliament.∙Expertise–parliament does not possess the necessary expertise to regulate areas requiring complex and detailed implementation –for example, regulations under pharmaceuticals legislation.∙Flexibility – regulations can be made, altered or repealed much more rapidly then a new law can be passed, or amendments made to an existing law.Delegated legislation is made by persons and bodies who are not elected lawmakers, therefore, in theory it does offend parliamentary sovereignty. However, delegated legislation is authorised by parliament, therefore, the rules and regulations made by these subordinate bodies must not go beyond the authority given to them under Enabling Acts. If a rule or regulation is challenged in court and found not to be authorised under the Act it is said to be ultra vires or beyond power.There are various review and scrutiny committees attached to parliament which examine all delegated legislation to ensure that it conforms to the authorising legislation. For example, the Federal Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances ensures that all regulations are passed in accordance with the relevant statute; that they do not trespass on personal rights and liberties; that administrative decisions are subject to review; and that delegated legislation deals only with administrative detail and not matters of substance. It is also common practice for regulations to be tabled in parliament where they can be disallowed by either House within a specified time.COMMON LAWThe other very important source of law within the Anglo-Australian legal systems is common law or case law. This refers to the legal principles developed over the centuries by judges when deciding cases. The principles of most areas of law are based on common law although now supplemented and modified by legislation. For example, the Law of Contract is mainly based on common law rules.After 1066 when William the Conqueror came to the throne common law courts (or Kings Courts) were established in London. They included the Courts of Exchequer, Common Pleas and Kings Bench. Legal disputes between citizens in areas outside London had traditionally been resolved through the application of local customary rules which may have varied from one part of the kingdom to the other. The practice arose of sending judges from the courts in London on circuit throughout the realm to resolve these disputes. This was very important for the development of English law because the judges applied the same principles for deciding cases in these outlying areas that they were applying to resolve similar disputes in the courts in London.A coherent body of law developed which unified customary rules and traditional practices. The doctrine of precedent evolved whereby judges began to apply the same principles to resolve disputes where the facts were similar. Lower courts within the court hierarchy were therefore bound to follow the principles of law developed by the higher courts when deciding similar cases. This doctrine is still applicable today and is important for maintaining certainty in the application of the law and to minimise the possibility of judges deciding cases on the basis of their own subjective views.Over time the procedures for bringing civil actions became complicated and expensive. The court system was affected by corruption, expense and delays. There were also some disputes which the civil courts were unable to resolve due to limitations on remedies and forms of action.EQUITYEquity refers to the principles of fairness and justice developed by the Lord Chancellor in hearing disputes that could not be resolved in the ordinary civil courts. Eventually the Court of Chancery was set up to deal with these complaints.An example of equity is the law relating to trusts. If a farmer wanted to make sure that after his death his children would eventually have property of their own, the farmer would transfer ownership of that land to a trusted relative or business associate. This transfer was made on the understanding that when the children were old enough the “trusted” person would transfer ownership of the property to them. Problems arose when the “trusted” person sold the land or refused to transfer it to the farmer’s children. The common law courts did not recognise any form of action that the children could take against that person. As far as the common law is concerned the person to whom the transfer had been made is the legal owner and can therefore do what they like with the property. This outcome is obviously unfair.In the situation just described the children would take their complaint to the King as the head of the justice system. The king would delegate the responsibility for hearing these petitions to the Lord Chancellor as the King’s closest adviser. The Lord Chancellor would make a decision based “on the merits”of the plaintiffs’ claim. He would apply principles of fairness or equity to solve problems that the common law courts could not. The Lord Chancellor would describe the farmer’s arrangement as a trust. The person to whom the land was transferred is a trustee. The children were meant to benefit from the arrangement; therefore, they are beneficiaries under the trust. The trustee has a duty to look after the trust property on behalf of the beneficiaries and they have an independent right of action in equity to enforce the trust against the trustee if necessary.The main remedy or outcome that the plaintiff would obtain from a successful civil action in the common law courts was damages to compensate for the defendant’s wrongdoing. This was not always the most appropriate remedy. For example, Farmer Jones has agreed to sell his prize breeding bull to Farmer Brown at the market next Saturday for $4000. On Saturday Farmer Brown goes to the market with his money and is ready to buy the bull. Farmer Jones tells him that he has changed his mind and now wants to keep the bull. At common law Farmer Jones can sue Farmer Brown for damages but this is not the most helpful outcome or remedy. Farmer Jones wants the actual bull because he has agreed to sell it to another farmer for more money or he has planned to expand his breeding business. Farmer Jones would petition to equity for a more appropriate remedy.In the above example the Court of Chancery would make an order for specific performance. This is an equitable remedy that would ensure Farmer Jones carry out his side of the agreement and transfer ownership of the pig to Farmer Brown as agreed. This is a veryimportant remedy that is still used today where the item under a contract is rare, unusual or it is difficult to put a price on it. The court will at its discretion order specific performance where common law damages would not be the most appropriate remedy.Another remedy that was developed in the Court of Chancery and still available today is the injunction. This is an order that the plaintiff obtains to stop the defendant from doing something that they are doing or about to do. For example, A has agreed to sell his car to B for $5000. C comes along and offers A more money. If necessary, B can seek an order for an injunction to stop A from breaking their agreement and selling the car to C.Over time the Court of Chancery also began to apply the same principles to decide similar cases; that is, to observe the doctrine of precedent. Two bodies of case law developed alongside each other, common law and equity. The remedy the plaintiff wanted to obtain would determine which court the action would be heard in – the common law courts of the Court of Chancery. This created practical difficulties where the plaintiff wanted an equitable and common law remedy.The Judicature Act reforms of the 1870s in England removed the need to take common law and equitable actions in separate courts. One court could now apply principles derived from both sources of case law in the same case.In both the English and Australian systems the higher courts are Courts of Law and Equity. The High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and the State Supreme Courts can apply principles of common law and/or equity when hearing cases.Principles of equity are not fixed and continue t o evolve. The term “unconscionable” is now used in some Acts of parliament to provide a cause of action for the plaintiff where the defendant’s actions, while not illegal, are still unfair –e.g. where a corporation takes advantage of someone who is vulnerable.CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAWEarly on the courts differentiated between two different types of legal action –civil and criminal. Civil actions refer to private law actions taken out by citizens against each in relation to the civil law. Actions can also be taken by companies and the government against individuals and vice versa. Civil law refers to such areas of law as Contract, Property and Tort. An example of a situation giving rise to a civil action is a motor vehicle accident. The injured party will take a civil action for damages in tort against the person who caused the accident. The plaintiff sues the defendant with a view to obtaining a legally recognised remedy.The most common remedy in civil action is damages to compensate the injured party for their loss.Criminal actions refer to actions taken by the State against a person suspected of having committed a crime. The State prosecutes the offender with the aim of securing a conviction and the imposition of a penalty. Private individuals do not prosecute. It is a matter for the State to decide whether or not to prosecute an offender.Civil and criminal actions are taken in separate courts within the English and Australian court systems. It is in the area of civil law that procedures and remedies became complex giving rise to an alternative source of case law called equity.ENGLISH LAW IN AUSTRALIAAustralia was settled as a series of colonies by the English from 1788 onwards. New South Wales was established as a convict colony in 1788. Governor Phillip, a military official sent out from England, was given power to proclaim legislation to apply to the colony. There was no law-making body until 1823 when an Act of the English parliament (4 Geo IV c 96) created a legislative council to make laws consistent with the laws of Britain.Doctrine of ReceptionIn the 1700s Australia was regarded as an uninhabited country (“terra nullius”) by the English, despite the presence of the Aboriginal people. The indigenous population had no organised system of government and trade that the English could relate to, therefore, it was not necessary to come to any agreement or even to conquer these people. Instead, at their respective dates of settlement each of the colonies automatically received the laws that existed in England at that time (common law and legislation) that were relevant to an infant colony. For NSW this was 1788 and SA 1836. This is called the doctrine of reception and explains why the foundation law in Australia is English.On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland (No2) 175 CLR 1 formally acknowledged the Aboriginal people as the original inhabitants of Australia. The High Court recognised a form of native title where it has not been extinguished.Over time each colony obtained its own representative legislature to pass laws generally for the peace, order and good government of the colony. For SA the parliament was established under the South Australian Constitution in 1856 to make laws generally fo r the “peace, order and good government” of the colony.Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (UK)This Act was passed to confirm the ability of the colonial legislatures to pass their own laws even though they may differ from English “received” law as long as they were not repugnant to (or inconsistent with) laws expressly intended to apply to the colonies, called paramount force legislation.Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK)In 1901 through the passing of the Commonwealth Constitution the colonies became States in a federation and the Commonwealth of Australia came into being. The colonies gave up some of their law making powers to the Commonwealth parliament and the power to legislate was divided between the Commonwealth and States, called the division of powers. Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK)In 1941 the Commonwealth adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931 which confirmed that the Commonwealth (but not the States) was no longer bound by laws of the English parliament, unless the Commonwealth expressly requested and consented to being boundby English laws. The UK Parliament could still theoretically make laws and expressly apply them to the States.Australia Acts 1986 (UK)In 1986 at the “request and consent” of the Commonwealth and States the Engli sh parliament passed the Australia Acts which finally removed any residual right that the UK Parliament may have had to legislate for the Australian States. This marks the final break of constitutional links between Australia and the UK.At present the only way that Australia can be bound by a law of the UK Parliament is if all the states agree and the Commonwealth expressly requests and consents to the UK Parliament passing a law to apply in Australia. This may be one way of getting a new constitution, but very unlikely.Although Australia has similar laws and institutions that are modelled on the English, England has not actual political control over Australia. The origins of the Australian legal system are English, however, Australia is now an independent sovereign nation. CHAPTER 2 - THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM (PART 2)This chapter covers the following topics:∙Federation∙The establishment of the Commonwealth Parliament∙Division of Powers∙The establishment and authority of the High Court of Australia∙Expansion of Commonwealth Powers∙Separation of Powers DoctrineFEDERATIONIn 1900 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was passed by the English Parliament establishing the Commonwealth of Australia and transforming the colonies into states in a federation. The Constitution is set out in Chapters I to VIII. Within the Chapters are sections. The letter “s” is used to represent the word “section”. COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTChapter I of the Constitution establishes the Commonwealth (or federal) Parliament consisting of an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the House of Representatives. The powers of the Commonwealth parliament are mainly set out in section 51.Chapter II establishes the Commonwealth Executive which is headed by the Governor-General and comprises government departments. The Ministers that head these departments must also be members of parliament (s 64). This is a feature of the English ministerial system of government that has been adopted in the State and federal systems of government.Chapter III sets up the federal judicature, including the High Court of Australia (s 71). The Commonwealth parliament is authorised to establish other federal courts to exercise federal jurisdiction which it has done through the establishment of the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia.DIVISION OF POWERSBy the time the colonies federated they each had their own legislative bodies (parliaments) capable of passing laws for the “peace, order and good government” of the colony concerned.Although the Commonwealth Parliament was given a broad range of powers under section 51 many of these are shared with the States, although some belong exclusively to the Commonwealth. Some of the colonies’ legislative powe rs were never given to the Commonwealth. The division of powers refers to the sharing of legislative powers between the Commonwealth and State parliaments.Exclusive powersExclusive powers are legislative powers that were given up by the colonies and belong exclusively to the Commonwealth. They include:∙Social security∙Customs and excise duties∙Defence∙Currency and coinage∙External affairs∙Immigration∙The government of the territories∙CommunicationsConcurrent powersConcurrent powers refer to most of the Commonwealth’s powers that are shared with the states. Some include:∙Trade and commerce∙Taxation∙Banking∙Insurance∙Marriage and divorce∙Industrial relationsBoth the Commonwealth and State parliaments can make laws on these subject matters, but in the event of a conflict between a State and federal law on the same subject matter, the Constitution provides in section 109 that the Commonwealth law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.Residual powersResidual powers refer to those areas of power that were never transferred over to the Commonwealth but remain with the States. The States are responsible for making laws in relation to:∙Education∙Health∙Housing∙Transport∙Law enforcement∙Environment and planning∙Public utilities∙Emergency services∙RoadsAlthough the Commonwealth cannot directly legislate on these matters it has progressively influenced the manner in which the States regulate these areas. This has taken place through the system of financial grants to the States and the High Court’s expanded interpretation of Commonwealth powers to affect State residual areas.The Constitution prohibits both the States and the Commonwealth from making laws that would restrict freedom of trade between the States (s 92) or that would discriminate between States (s 117).The Commonwealth is expressly prohibited from restricting freedom of religion (s116); or acquiring property without fair compensation (51(xxxi)).The Constitution also guarantees the continued existence of the Sates under s106. It also provides for the admission of new States to the Commonwealth under s121.HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAThe High Court of Australia was established under Chapter III of the Constitution. In its original jurisdiction the High Court can decide disputes:∙In which the Commonwealth is a party∙Between States∙Arising under the Constitution, or involving its interpretation∙Arising under any law made by the ParliamentThe High Court is the only body that is authorised to interpret the Constitution, that is, to give the words and terms meaning. This is a very important role because the Constitution was drafted (written) in the late 1800s, yet is still able to regulate our system of government into the 21st century. The High Court is called upon from time to time to give the Constitution a meaning that reflects modern conditions and a changing society. As the Commonwealth is a member of the international community it should not be inhibited in its regulation of matters that have a global impact. Therefore, it is now able to regulate matters that were never thought of by the Founding Fathers, including the environment, privacy。
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和裁判权的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和裁判权的
划分
澳大利亚是一个采用三权分立制度的国家，三权分立的概念最早由法国政治哲学家孟德斯鸠提出，意即国家权力的分散和互相制衡。
三个主要权力分支包括立法权、行政权和司法权。
本文将重点探讨澳大利亚的立法权和裁判权的划分情况。
立法权是指制定法律的权力，而裁判权则是解释和适用法律的权力。
在澳大利亚，立法权属于国会，由参议院和众议院组成。
国会负责通过制定法律来管理国家事务，代表人民的利益。
立法权的划分体现了民主原则，不同政党和利益集团通过选举获得机会来影响和决定法律的通过。
裁判权则属于司法体系，由法院担任。
澳大利亚的司法体系是一个独立的机构，负责审理案件、解决纠纷，并依据法律作出公正的裁决。
法官们被认为是独立、公正和中立的，并不受其他两个权力分支的干涉。
他们的职责是确保法律被正确解释和适用，并维护法律的公信力和公正性。
虽然立法权和裁判权在澳大利亚的三权分立制度中有明确的划分，但实际上，这两个权力分支之间存在着互动和联系。
立法法规的制定需要依据司法解释和先例法的指导，而司法体系也需要立法的支持和法律的约束。
因此，立法权和裁判权之间的互动是确保法律体系正常运行的关键。
总之，澳大利亚的三权分立制度在立法权和裁判权的划分上是明确的。
立法权属于国会，而裁判权归属于独立的司法体系。
尽管存在互动和联系，但这两个权力分支在确保法律体系正常运行和保障公正性方面起着重要作用。
(Word Count: 229)。
澳洲法律资料
澳洲法律资料澳大利亚是我国重要的贸易伙伴之一。
双方贸易近年来呈稳步增长态势。
本专题全面地概览了澳大利亚的国情、法律体系和主要的贸易壁垒。
并从技术法规、标准和合格评定几方面对其技术性贸易措施体系做了介绍。
最后，从澳大利亚的重点领域（消费者保护、食品安全、环保领域和节能领域）对其技术性贸易壁垒作了详述。
以期帮助出口澳大利亚的企业扩大出口，克服贸易壁垒。
澳洲法律体系概述1. 法律渊源澳大利亚沿袭英国的法律制度，建立了以普通法为基础的法律体系。
但是随着时代的变迁，澳大利亚的法律渊源发生了较大变化，现在的法律体系由普通法和成文法组成，主要有以下几类：∙法案：由联邦议会和各州/地区议会根据其宪法立法；∙法规和条例：根据法案的授权由行政机构制定，并处于议会的监督之下；∙判例法：从英国的普通法发展而来，依据遵循先例好规则，法院的判决具有法律效力；∙其他：某些不具有法律性质和法律约束力，但法院在进行裁判时可能予以考虑的具有一定影响力的活动，如：针对某些特定案件的行政决议；在相应的法院的管辖之外的其他司法裁决；国际法和国际条约/公约等。
2. 法律体系澳大利亚的法律体系并不是集中统一的，而是包括横向的三权分立和纵向的联邦、州和地区的法律体系。
横向的三权分立，即：联邦和各州的法律制度都体现了立法、行政和司法的三权分立。
澳大利亚将立法权、行政权和司法权分属于议会、行政机构和司法机构。
然而，在澳大利亚，由于澳总理和其他政府部长都必须为议会成员，因此，行政机关和立法机关不分离，即立法权和行政权分界不明。
同时，澳大利亚的法律体系由联邦法律和各州/地区法律组成。
联邦宪法采用了美国联邦宪法立法模式，仅列举了联邦议会的具体权力。
各州享有独立的立法、行政和司法权，澳大利亚各州议会分别根据本州的产业情况，有针对性地进行一些立法。
具体的法律和法规信息可从各州议会和各州政府的相关网站下载。
澳洲立法机关就法案而言，澳大利亚的立法机构主要是联邦议会和州议会；就法规和条例而言，制定机构主要是各行政机构；就判例法而言，制定机构主要是法院。
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权力和司法权力的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权力和司法权力的划分介绍三权分立是现代民主国家的一项重要原则，确保政府权力的平衡和制衡。
澳大利亚作为一个民主国家，也遵循了三权分立的原则。
本文将重点讨论澳大利亚的国会权力和司法权力的划分。
国会权力澳大利亚的国会是立法机构，负责制定法律和监督行政机关。
国会由众议院和参议院组成。
众议院众议院是国会的下议院，代表人民的利益。
众议院的成员由普选产生，任期三年。
众议院在立法过程中起着关键作用，提出和讨论法案，最终进行投票表决。
参议院参议院是国会的上议院，代表各个州和地区的利益。
参议院的成员由各州和地区的议会选举产生，任期六年。
参议院对法案的审查和修改起着重要作用，也参与决定法案是否通过。
司法权力澳大利亚的司法系统独立于行政和立法机构，负责审理和解决法律争议。
澳大利亚的最高法院是高等法院。
司法权力的划分体现在以下几个方面：法律解释和审查最高法院负责解释和审查法律的合宪性。
它对行政机关和立法机构的行为进行审查，保证宪法的正确执行。
独立的法庭系统澳大利亚的法庭系统是独立的，独立于政府和其他利益团体。
法官独立行使法律职权，确保公正和平等的司法程序。
宪法保护权澳大利亚的宪法为公民提供了基本权利和自由的保护。
最高法院负责对违反宪法的法律进行审查，并保护公民的权利。
结论澳大利亚的三权分立制度确保了国会权力和司法权力的独立和平衡。
通过众议院和参议院的合作以及独立的司法体系，澳大利亚实现了有效的制衡，并维护了公民的基本权利和自由。
澳大利亚的三个政府机构：行政机构和司法机构的划分
澳大利亚的三个政府机构：行政机构和司法机构的划分介绍澳大利亚政府的组织结构由三个主要的政府机构组成，分别是行政机构、立法机构和司法机构。
本文将重点介绍澳大利亚的行政机构和司法机构以及它们的划分。
行政机构澳大利亚的行政机构负责政府的日常管理和实施政策。
行政机构由各个政府部门和机构组成，它们根据法律和政策来行使权力和职责。
联邦行政机构澳大利亚联邦政府的行政机构由内阁和各个部门组成。
内阁由总理和其他部长组成，他们负责确定政府的政策和决策。
各个部门负责管理特定的领域，如财政、卫生、教育等。
州和地区行政机构澳大利亚的六个州和两个领地都有各自的行政机构。
每个州和领地都有自己的政府，在州长或首席部长的领导下管理各个部门和机构。
这些行政机构负责管理地方事务，如交通、卫生、教育等。
司法机构澳大利亚的司法机构负责解决法律争议和确保法律的公正执行。
司法机构独立于行政和立法机构，它们根据宪法和法律来行使权力。
高等法院澳大利亚最高法院是最高级别的法院，负责解释宪法和处理重要的法律争议。
它由七名法官组成，法官由总督任命。
高级法院和其他法院除了最高法院，澳大利亚还有各个州和领地的高级法院以及其他专门的法院。
这些法院负责处理各类刑事、民事和行政法律事务。
总结澳大利亚的政府机构包括行政机构和司法机构，它们各自承担着不同的职责和权力。
行政机构负责政府的管理和实施，而司法机构则负责解决法律争议。
这些机构的划分和运作共同确保了澳大利亚政府的正常运行和法律的公正执行。
【Word Count: 221】。
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和审判权的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和审判权的划分澳大利亚是一个拥有三权分立体制的国家，即行政权、立法权和审判权相互独立。
其中，立法权和审判权在澳大利亚的划分和运作中起着重要的作用。
立法权的划分澳大利亚的立法权属于联邦政府和各个州政府。
根据宪法规定，联邦政府负责制定和修改适用于整个国家的法律，而各个州政府则负责制定针对自身地区的法律。
这种划分保证了澳大利亚的法律体系具有联邦和地方两个层面。
立法权的行使主要通过议会进行。
澳大利亚的联邦议会由参议院和众议院组成，它们共同制定和修改法律。
参议院代表州政府利益，众议院代表公民利益。
这种设立双重机构的方式旨在确保各方利益能得到平衡和考虑。
审判权的划分澳大利亚的审判权由各级法院行使，主要包括联邦法院和各个州和领地的最高法院。
联邦法院负责处理与联邦政府有关的法律事务，而州和领地的最高法院则负责处理与州政府和领地政府有关的法律事务。
审判权的独立性是澳大利亚法治的重要原则之一。
法官在行使审判权时应独立于行政和立法机关，确保能够独立地对案件进行公正和客观的裁决。
澳大利亚的宪法和法律保障了法官的独立地位，并规定了其职权和权力的范围。
三权分立的重要性澳大利亚的三权分立体制确保了国家的稳定和民主。
行使不同的权力的机构相互制衡，避免了某一权力过于集中，促进了权力的合理行使和公共利益的维护。
三权分立体制还为公民提供了法律保护的机制。
立法机关负责制定法律，审判机关负责解释和适用法律，从而确保法律的一致性和公正性。
这为公民提供了公平公正的司法程序，维护了权益和正义。
总结而言，澳大利亚的三权分立体制将立法权和审判权划分并独立行使，确保了国家的稳定和民主，并为公民提供了法律保护的机制。
这是澳大利亚法治和民主制度成功运行的重要基石。
三权分立与权力制衡的原理
三权分立的优点
权力制衡：三 权分立有助于 实现权力之间 的平衡，防止 权力过度集中
防止腐败：分 权制度能够降 低腐败的可能 性，因为不同 权力机构之间 可以相互监督
提高效率：三 权分立有助于 提高政府机构 的办事效率， 因为不同部门 之间可以相互 协作，分工明
确
保障人权：三 权分立有助于 保障公民的权 利和自由，因 为权力之间的 制衡可以防止 权力滥用和侵
势
Part 01
添加章节标题
Part 02
三权分立的概念
立法权、行政权和司法权的定义
立法权：制定和修改法律的权力，通常由议会或人民代表大会行使。
行政权：执行和管理国家的权力，通常由政府或内阁行使。
司法权：审判和裁决法律纠纷的权力，通常由法院行使。
三权分立的目的和意义
目的：通过分权，实现权力的制约与平衡，防止权力滥用和腐败现象的发生。 意义：保障人民的权利和自由，促进政治稳定和社会发展，提高政府的工作效率和公信力。
权力制衡的意义：保障民主、维护法治、促进社会公正和稳定。
权力制衡的重要性
防止权力滥用：通过分权和制约机制，确保权力不被滥用，维护公平正义。 保障人权：有效制约权力，能够防止政府对公民权利的侵犯，保护人权。 提高决策质量：权力制衡能够促使各方对决策进行充分的讨论和审议，从而提高决策质量。 促进政治稳定：合理的权力分配和制约，有助于维护政治稳定，减少政治动荡。
不同国家权力制衡的实践
美国的三权分立：立法、行政、司法三权分立，相互制衡 英国的议会内阁制：议会多数党领袖担任首相，内阁对议会负责，受到议会监督 法国的半总统半议会制：总统和议会分享权力，行政权和立法权相互制衡 德国的议会联邦制：联邦议会和联邦参议院分享立法权，联邦政府和地方政府分享行政权
澳大利亚司法制度
澳大利亚司法制度一、司法体系（一）澳大利亚联邦体系立法机关—联邦议会（包括参议院和众议院）享有立法权—女皇批准议会通过的法律—由总督来代表女皇执行。
行政机关联邦政府司法机关—联邦高等法院各州的政权体系也包括上述三部分，即州议会、州政府和州法院系统。
（二）澳大利亚法律体系联邦法律——联邦议会通过议案产生（首都堪培拉）州法律——州议会——该法律仅在本州内有效(州的普通案件适用各州的法律审理)上诉到联邦高等法院——联邦高等法院适用该州的法律例外：毒品案件、走私案件、税收案件等涉及联邦事务的案件，只能适用联邦刑事法案审理，上诉后依然适用联邦刑事法案。
(三)澳大利亚法院联邦法院—联邦高等法院（受理各州的上诉案件和涉及联邦事务的一审案件）、专门法院州法院—分为州最高法院、地区法院、地方法院，此外还有儿童法庭、赔偿法庭、租赁关系法庭等专门法庭。
.联邦法院与州法院之间同样没有领导和隶属关系。
(四)各法院管辖权各级法院的管辖权都由宪法明确规定，即使是州级法院内部的管辖权也由一个专门的法院议案（章程）作出明确的规定。
.受理的案件标的额地方法院受理的案件标的额一般不得高于澳元地区法院受理的案件标的额不得高于澳元州最高法院可受理一切案件，没有标的数额的限制。
.受理费在地方法院立案需要澳元，在州最高法院立案则需要澳元，败诉一方要承担这项费用及对方的律师费。
.受理案件.澳大利亚州级法院系统中，级别越低的法院审理的案件越多，以新南威尔士州为例，地区法院一年要审理民事案件至件、刑事案件件。
.地方法院审理的案件远远高于这些数字，案件的级别却相对较低。
二、法官的产生（一）律师制度讨论澳大利亚的法官，首先要介绍澳大利亚的律师。
澳大利亚沿袭了英国的制度，有两种律师从业人员，虽然都叫做律师，但英文的翻译却是不同的两个单词：和。
前者被称作初级律师，后者被称作辩护律师或出庭律师。
学生（从法学院毕业后有权选择在哪个层次上进行实践）三个方向：其一，他可以在法学院的资助下出国深造，学成之后继续在法学院从事法学研究工作；其二，他可以选择作初级律师，同时再读几门课程，然后由出庭律师引导从事律师业务，两年后，可以自己开办律师事务所。
澳大利亚司法体系
澳⼤利亚司法体系澳⼤利亚司法体系传承英国普通法系精髓，强调“依法治国、公平公证、司法独⽴”精神。
这也为企业在澳开展投资项⽬提供了保障。
以下，我们从政府体制与⽴法程序⽅⾯对澳⼤利亚司法系统进⾏简单介绍。
政府体制澳⼤利亚联邦由六个州（新南威尔⼠州、维多利亚州、昆⼠兰州、南澳⼤利亚州、西澳⼤利亚州和塔斯马尼亚州）以及两个领地（北部地区和澳⼤利亚⾸都直辖区）组成。
⾃1901年1⽉1⽇起《澳⼤利亚宪法》设⽴以来，联邦政府体系将权⼒平分于联邦政府以及各州及领地政府。
《宪法》将⽴法权⼒赋予联邦政府⽤于例如税收、国防、贸易与商业、移民、外商投资、通讯、银⾏业、公司业以及对外事物在内的各⾏各业制定相应的法律法规。
在澳⼤利亚司法体系中，联邦法律属于第⼀等级。
当联邦法律与各州及领地法律出现相抵触时，遵从联邦法律。
同时，联邦法律适⽤于澳⼤利亚各州及领地。
各州及领地政府属于第⼆等级。
各州及领地政府可以⾃主制订地⽅法律，但涉及联邦政府保留事项的除外。
地⽅法律主要关注各州及领地公共设施的运⾏状况（例如：⽔电供应、教育和医院）。
第三等级是权⼒有限的地区政府。
尽管联邦、州及领地政府在⼀些项⽬，尤其在重⼤开发项⽬上，可能有⼀些权⼒，但⼟地的使⽤和开发等事务通常由地区政府掌管，旨在让地区政府更加积极地推动当地⼯商业的发展。
⽴法程序位于堪培拉的联邦政府是主要政府机构。
联邦议会由两部分组成：众议院（下议院）和参议院（上议院）。
每个议院中的成员均通过公众选举产⽣。
所有的州在参议院⾥都有同等的席位。
议员通过议案的⽅式向国会提出法规、草案。
经过在众议院和参议院多次讨论、修改成为议案，在获得参众两院多数通过之后，⽅能提交⾄总督处，在总督最终同意该议案后，议案就正式成为法案，具有法律效⼒。
地⽅国会（州及领地）也以类似的⽅法通过法案。
司法系统与争议解决制度澳⼤利亚的法律来⾃两个⽅⾯：联邦和州政府制定并通过的‘成⽂法’以及由联邦和州的法院判决构成的‘判例法’。
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权力和裁判权的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权力和裁判权
的划分
概述：
澳大利亚是一个拥有三权分立制度的国家，分别为国会权力（立法权）、行政权力和裁判权。
本文将重点探讨国会权力和裁判权的划分。
国会权力（立法权）：
国会是澳大利亚最高立法机构，由联邦议会组成，包括众议院和参议院。
国会有权拟定和通过法律，并对国家事务进行监督。
国会的立法权使其成为澳大利亚民主体制中的核心。
裁判权：
裁判权属于澳大利亚独立的司法机构。
最高法院作为最高裁判机构，有权解释和适用法律，确保法律的公正执行。
其他联邦和州地方法院也负责处理特定类型的案件。
国会权力与裁判权的划分：
国会权力和裁判权的划分是为了确保法律的制定和执行能够相
互制约，保持权力的平衡。
国会通过立法规定法律，裁判机构则通
过独立的司法程序确保法律的公正执行。
这种划分旨在防止权力过
度集中和滥用，在保护公民权利和维护法治的同时，实现政府的有
效治理。
三权分立的重要性：
澳大利亚的三权分立体现了民主和法治原则的核心价值。
国会
权力和裁判权的划分确保了权力的制约和平衡，避免了专制和权力
滥用。
同时，三权分立也保护了公民的权利和自由，确保了公正和
公正的司法程序。
总结：
澳大利亚的三权分立制度确保了国家的有效治理和法治的实现。
国会权力和裁判权的划分是保持权力平衡和防止滥用的关键。
三权
分立的价值在于保护公民权利、维护法治和实现民主原则。
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和司法权的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权和司法权的划分澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权、司法权AnswersThe legislative power is divided into three divisions as “exclusive powers”, “concurrent powers” and “residual powers”. Exclusive powers refer to legislative powers that exclusively belong to the Commonwealth. Only the Commonwealth can make laws in relation to these affairs. These affairs such as social security, customs and excise duties, defense, currency and coinage, external affairs, immigration, the government of the territories and communications are mainly in relation to the Commonwealth as a whole country. Concurrent powers refer to powers which are shared between the Commonwealth and states. Both the Commonwealth and states may make laws to regulate these aspects, such as trade and commerce, taxation, banking, insurance, marriage and divorce, industrial relations and so on. Residual powers refer to powers which will never be transferred to the Commonwealth but remain with states. These powers are in relation to the inner affairs of one state such as education, health, housing, transportation, law enforcement, environment and planning, public utilities, emergency services and roads and so on. They usually have no connection with other states or the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10, p 11, p 12).(1)Only the State parliaments can legislate on the construction of the new public hospital inAdelaide. This is because legislation on subject matter of “health”is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 11).(2)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the tax imposed on the importation intoAustralia of cars manufactured in America (imposition of a customs). This is because legislation on subject matter of “Customs and excise duties” is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p10).(3)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the establishment of an army base northof Adelaide due to that establishing an army base is a matter of the whole country. This is because legislation on subject matter of “Defense”is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10). (4)Only the States parliaments can legislate on the prohibition on the construction of buildings in the Adelaide hills face zone. This is because legislation on subject matte r of “Environment and planning” is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10).(5)I would follow the precedent which originates from the South Australian Supreme Court todecide the case based on the following grounds:a.In South Australia there is a layered court system consists of the Magistrates Court(including the Court of Limited Jurisdiction), the District Court and the Supreme Court of South Australia. The last one is the highest court in South Australia. The District Court is the lower and middle court. The three layers of courts are within thesame hierarchy since they are in the same states.b.The doctrine of precedent provides that within the same court hierarchy a lower courtshall follow a precedent originates from a higher court. The Supreme Court of South Australia is the higher court and in the same hierarchy with the District Court. So the District Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Based on the doctrine of precedent I must follow the precedent raised by the lawyer originates 本人男，汉族，1987年11月出生于湖北。
论“三权分立”中司法权与行政权的关系
论“三权分立”中司法权与行政权的关系作者：刘晔来源：《法制与社会》2009年第01期摘要“三权分立”是西方资本主义国家确立政权组织形式的指导原则之一,对于我国的司法体制改革具有良好的借鉴作用。
本文介绍了“三权分立”理论的历史沿革,由孟德斯鸠的观点引出对于司法权与行政权各自特点及相互联系的分析,明确“三权分立”理论中两者的关系,并且针对我国司法体制的特点进一步阐明了“三权分立”的现实意义。
关键词分权制衡司法权行政权中图分类号:D90文献标识码:A文章编号:1009-0592(2009)01-011-02一、“三权分立”理论的历史沿革“三权分立”理论的思想起源可以追溯到古罗马时代。
柏拉图在《法律篇》中就提出了由37人组成最高委员会的行政机关,同时在四个不同等级的公民阶层中选90人组成立法机构。
柏拉图的高足亚里士多德则在其著作《政治学》一书中最早提出了分权思想,即将政府的机能分为三个要素——立法机能(议事机能)、行政机能和审判机能。
100多年后,波利比阿在他的《罗马史》中不仅把政府分成人民大会、元老院、执政官三部分,而且同时提出了三种国家权力机关之间应当互相制衡的宝贵理论。
到了17世纪,英国的洛克正式提出了“三权分立”的理论,他在著作《政府论》中把国家权力划分为立法权,执行权和对外权三部分,但是“洛克并没有把司法权单独划出,而是把司法权仍归属于行政权。
”①相对成熟而完备的“三权分立”理论直到18世纪才由法国思想家孟德斯鸠提出。
在其著名的《论法的精神》一书中,针对封建暴政的极权主义提出了立法权、行政权和司法权既相互分离又相互制衡的理论,最终成为当今资本主义国家建立的指导原则。
二、孟德斯鸠“三权分立”理论的内涵孟德斯鸠是“三权分立”理论的集大成者,他主张立法权代表国家意志,应由人民集体享有,人民通过代表制定法律,同时将立法机关分为贵族院和众议院,使贵族和平民可以相互制约、自我保护;行政权由君主掌控,有权制止立法机关的越权行为,通过“反对权”参加立法,但是不参与立法事项的讨论;法院专掌司法权,由人民阶层选举产生,法官按照法律的规定行使权力。
澳洲司法体系介绍
澳洲司法体系介绍2009-06-14| 22:29| 来源：追梦人的博客| 编辑：wdglan众所周知，澳大利亚原系英国的殖民地，其法律制度是在英国法传统的影响下形成的以普通法、衡平法和判例法为基础的法律体系，属于英美法系国家。
司法体系澳大利亚联邦体系分为三个部分：第一是立法机关，由联邦议会（包括参议院、众议院）享有立法权；女皇是国家的象征，批准议会通过的法律。
总督代表女皇在澳洲行使权力。
第二是行政机关，即联邦政府。
第三是司法机关——联邦高等法院。
各州的政权体系也包括立法机关、行政机关和司法机关三部分，即州议会、州政府和州法院系统。
澳大利亚的法律可分为两个体系：联邦法律和州法律。
联邦法律是在首都堪培拉由联邦议会通过议案产生，行政法也是通过这个程序来制定。
每个州的议会制定涉及本州事务的各项法律与联邦法律相对应，只在本州有效。
各州的普通案件适用各州的法律审理，上诉到联邦高等法院后，联邦高等法院仍适用该州的法律，但毒品案件、走私案件、税收案件等涉及联邦事务的案件，只能适用联邦刑事法案审理，上诉后依然适用联邦刑事法案。
澳大利亚的法院分为联邦法院和州法院两套系统。
联邦高等法院是澳大利亚法律体系中的最高法院，设在首都堪培拉。
联邦一级的法院还有家庭法院、工业关系法院等专门法院。
联邦高等法院受理各州的上诉案件和涉及联邦事务的一审案件。
澳大利亚认为公民的离婚案件属于联邦事务，由联邦级法院审理。
另外，州与州之间的工业关系案件等也都由联邦法院审理。
州级法院分为：州最高法院、地区法院、地方法院，此外还有儿童法庭、赔偿法庭、租赁关系法庭等专门法庭。
联邦法院与州法院之间同样没有领导和隶属关系。
各级法院的管辖权都由宪法明确规定，即使是州级法院内部的管辖权也由一个专门的法院议案（章程）作出明确的规定。
地方法院受理的案件标的额一般不得高于４００００澳元，地区法院受理的案件标的额不得高于７５００００澳元，而州最高法院可受理一切案件，没有标的数额的限制。
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权威和司法权力的划分
澳大利亚的三权分立：国会权威和司法权力的划分澳大利亚是一个三权分立的国家，国会与司法系统在政府运作中扮演着重要的角色。
本文将讨论澳大利亚国会的权威和司法权力的划分。
国会权威澳大利亚国会是由议会组成的，议会分为两个主要部分：参议院和众议院。
国会的主要职责包括法律的制定和监督政府的活动。
国会议员由选民选举产生，代表了不同的地区和政治党派。
国会的权威体现在其能够制定和通过法律的能力上。
法律的制定程序是由国会内部的辩论和投票来确定的。
国会的法律制定过程需要经过多次辩论和审议，并接受上级法院的审查。
国会的法律，一旦通过，并经过皇家同意，将成为正式的法律条款。
国会还拥有监督政府的权力。
议员可以提出问题并要求政府解释其政策和行为。
国会委员会定期召开听证会，以审查政府的决策，并向公众提供信息。
司法权力的划分司法系统在澳大利亚的三权分立中扮演着独立的角色。
澳大利亚的司法权力是由独立的法院系统行使的，以确保公正和平等的司法程序。
澳大利亚的司法系统基于英国的普通法传统，其最高法院是澳大利亚高等法院。
高等法院有权解释法律，并对争议进行裁决。
它对澳大利亚宪法的解释具有最高的权威。
除高等法院外，澳大利亚还有州和领地法院以及其他联邦法院，如联邦法院和家庭法院，以处理各种民事和刑事案件。
司法权力的划分保证了司法系统的独立性，以及对政府和其他权力机构的监督职责。
司法机构的独立性使其能够独立行使司法权力，确保公正和法律的平等适用。
结论澳大利亚的三权分立确保了国会的权威与司法系统的独立。
国会拥有立法和监督政府的权力，而司法系统保障了公正和平等的司法程序。
这种权力的划分促进了民主和法治的发展，确保了澳大利亚政府的有效运作。
以上是关于澳大利亚的三权分立，国会权威和司法权力的划分的简要介绍。
通过这种权力的平衡与分工，澳大利亚能够实现良好的政府治理。
澳大利亚立法
澳大利亚立法澳大利亚是一个联邦制国家。
以下是店铺为你整理的澳大利亚立法，希望大家喜欢!澳大利亚立法澳大利亚是一个联邦制国家。
该联邦是根据1990年澳大利亚宪法法令(该法令为英国议会立法)建立的。
联邦各州由前若干独立的英国殖民地组成。
故之，澳大利亚的法制源于英国法。
需要强调的是，当英国殖民者来到澳洲时，当地的土族人已在这块土地上居住了几千年，而英国殖民者对他们的存在，法律体制，习惯等在法律上采取了不承认的态度。
澳洲高等法院在1992年的Mab。
一案中，对这种不文明的做法作了严厉的批判与检讨。
原土人法及土人土地权现已逐步为澳洲法院及澳洲社会所承认。
尽管澳大利亚以英国法为基础构建其法律制度，但联邦制却使英国法某些原则的实际运作受到多重限制。
例如“议会至上”原则，在澳洲就受到联邦及各州宪法的严格限制。
实际上，澳大利亚联邦宪法尤其是关于联邦与州之间权力分配的规定，它主要以美国完法为模式，同时又采用英国的责任政府体系。
是英美法的混合物。
联邦制的存在，同时意味着一部联邦宪法与六部州宪法的并存。
就立法而言，国家权力在两个层次上进行分配：(l)国家全部权力(即立法，行政及司法权)在联邦与州之间分配;(2)在联邦(或州)一级，立法、行政、司法的三权分立。
换言之，联邦及各州议会在三权分立的原则下，依联邦及各州宪法，履行各自的立法权限。
本文以联邦立法为主要讨论对象。
各州立法虽有不同点，但就原则而言，实为大同小异。
立法权限如上所述，澳大利亚共有六部州宪法及一部联邦宪法。
联邦和州两级权力机构以各自宪法为运作基础。
联邦宪法就联邦与州之间的权力分配作了详细规定，这些规定的具体原则是：联邦议会享有宪法所赋予的特定立法权，州议会行使一般性立法权。
在联邦特定立法权中，有一部分为联邦议会专有立法权，但更多的特定立法权则为联邦与州议会共同享有。
1.联邦——州立法权分配澳大利亚联邦建立之前，其殖民地(即现在的州)均为“独立主权”，并各自拥有自己的宪法。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
澳大利亚的三权分立：立法权、司法权AnswersThe legislative power is divided into three divisions as “exclusive powers”, “concurrent powers” and “residual powers”. Exclusive powers refer to legislative powers that exclusively belong to the Commonwealth. Only the Commonwealth can make laws in relation to these affairs. These affairs such as social security, customs and excise duties, defense, currency and coinage, external affairs, immigration, the government of the territories and communications are mainly in relation to the Commonwealth as a whole country. Concurrent powers refer to powers which are shared between the Commonwealth and states. Both the Commonwealth and states may make laws to regulate these aspects, such as trade and commerce, taxation, banking, insurance, marriage and divorce, industrial relations and so on. Residual powers refer to powers which will never be transferred to the Commonwealth but remain with states. These powers are in relation to the inner affairs of one state such as education, health, housing, transportation, law enforcement, environment and planning, public utilities, emergency services and roads and so on. They usually have no connection with other states or the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10, p 11, p 12).(1)Only the State parliaments can legislate on the construction of the new public hospital inAdelaide. This is because legislation on subject matter of “health”is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 11).(2)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the tax imposed on the importation intoAustralia of cars manufactured in America (imposition of a customs). This is because legislation on subject matter of “Customs and excise duties” is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p10).(3)Only the Commonwealth parliaments can legislate on the establishment of an army base northof Adelaide due to that establishing an army base is a matter of the whole country. This is because legislation on subject matter of “Defense”is one power exclusively belongs to the Commonwealth (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10). (4)Only the States parliaments can legislate on the prohibition on the construction of buildings inthe Adelaide hills face zone. This is because legislation on subject matter of “Environment and planning” is one residual power belongs to the States (see FBL-Week 1 Topic 2 (Part 1) “The Australian Legal System” p 10).(5)I would follow the precedent which originates from the South Australian Supreme Court todecide the case based on the following grounds:a.In South Australia there is a layered court system consists of the Magistrates Court(including the Court of Limited Jurisdiction), the District Court and the Supreme Court of South Australia. The last one is the highest court in South Australia. The District Court is the lower and middle court. The three layers of courts are within the same hierarchy since they are in the same states.b.The doctrine of precedent provides that within the same court hierarchy a lower courtshall follow a precedent originates from a higher court. The Supreme Court of South Australia is the higher court and in the same hierarchy with the District Court. So the District Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Based on the doctrine of precedent I must follow the precedent raised by the lawyer originatesfrom the Supreme Court of South Australia, the higher court.c.Obviously the Supreme Court of New South Wales is not in the same hierarchy with theDistrict Court of South Australia due to their different location (they locate in different states) and have different jurisdictions. Decisions of a Supreme Courts in a state may be persuasive but have no binding effect upon other lower courts in other states or in other hierarchy. They only may be persuasive ( see FBL-Chapter 3 “Doctrine of precedent and statutory interpretation” p1, p2, p4).Taking into account of above reasons I may treat the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales as persuasive, but since its application conflicts the application of the decision of the South Australia Supreme Court and the District Court is bound to apply the decision of higher court within the same hierarchy, I will exclude the application of the decision of the Supreme Court of other state and follow the decision originates from the Supreme Court of South Australia.。