References & Citations

Chapter 2: The Case for Secession: The Law

1.      University of Wollongong v Metwally [1984] HCA 74 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/74.html>.

2.      Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills [1992] HCA 46 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/46.html>.

3.      Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/45.html >.

4.      Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/55.html>.

5.      Western Australia v Wilsmore [1981] WASC 5 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/1981/5.html>.

6.      Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (Communist Party Case) [1951] HCA 5; (1951) 83 CLR 1 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1951/5.html>.

7.      Sukrit Sabhlok, The Legality of Western Australia's Unilateral Secession (PhD Thesis, Macquarie University, 2022) <https://figshare.mq.edu.au/articles/thesis/The_Legality_of_Western_Australia_s_Unilateral_Secession/22291075?file=39640483>.

8.      Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217 <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html>.

9.      International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010) <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf>.

10.   Texas v White, 74 US (7 Wall) 700 (1869) <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/>.

11.   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights>.

12.   Australia Act 1986 (Cth) <https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03181/asmade/text>.

13.   Western Australia Constitution Act 1889 (WA) <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a172.html&view=consolidated>.

14.   Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) <https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth1_doc_1900.pdf>.

On Constitutional Convention Debates Regarding Indissolubility

15.   Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Adelaide, 1897 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b584146&seq=11>. Annotation: discussing secession during drafting, with the term "indissoluble" debated and retained only in the preamble as an aspirational expression rather than an operative prohibition.

16.   Gregory Craven, ‘An Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth? The Founding Fathers and the Secession of an Australian State’ (1983) 14 Melbourne University Law Review 281 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1983/20.pdf>. Annotation: analysing convention debates and framers' intentions, concluding secession was contemplated but not explicitly barred in the Constitution's text.

17.   Gregory Craven, Secession: The Ultimate States Right (Melbourne University Press, 1986) <https://search.worldcat.org/title/16867753>. Annotation: detailed examination of historical sources, including convention debates, affirming that framers chose not to prohibit secession explicitly.

18.   Mark McKenna, Amelia Simpson and George Williams, ‘First Words: The Preamble to the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 24(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 382 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2001/28.html>. Annotation: examining the provenance and intended effect of “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth” in convention debates, concluding it is aspirational rather than a legal prohibition on secession.

On Preambles

19.   Wacando v The Commonwealth [1981] HCA 60; (1981) 148 CLR 1 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/60.html>. Annotation: preamble cannot control clear, unambiguous operative text; used only as an interpretive aid.

20.   Twomey, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians in a Preamble (Report No 2/2011, Constitutional Reform Unit, Sydney Law School, September 2011) 18–20 <https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-law-school/research/centres-institutes/Report-2-2011-constitutional-recognition-of-indigenous-australians.pdf>. Annotation: collects authorities; explains the orthodox rule and cites Wacando.

21.   Mark McKenna, Amelia Simpson and George Williams, ‘First Words: The Preamble to the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 24(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 382 <https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/law/unsw-law-journal/2000-2009/Vol-No-24-2-18.pdf>. Annotation: expressly noting a preamble “does not create substantive rights or obligations”, but may guide interpretation.

22.   Quick and Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, 1901) <https://archive.org/download/annotatedconstit00quicuoft/annotatedconstit00quicuoft.pdf>. Annotation: classic statement: a preamble may resolve ambiguity but cannot “restrict or extend” plain operative words.