Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T20:51:45.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Address by the Honourable J J Spigelman AC Chief Justice of New South Wales Federal Law Review: 40th Anniversary Dinner Canberra, 28 October 2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of student-edited law reviews and whether or not they have a future has been the subject of controversy for many decades.

When Justice Michael Kirby published a defence of law reviews a few years ago, he said: ‘To justify a new journal, the publisher must offer something that current journals do not provide. As well, law schools, proliferating in such number, need to differentiate their products.’

From 1935 when Melbourne University Law School commenced to publish Res Judicatae, which became the Melbourne University Law Review in 1957, until today when there are almost 30 university law reviews, the Federal Law Review is the only one that identified a specialist field from the outset. In 1964 it became the seventh university law review following Melbourne, Queensland, Western Australia, Sydney, Tasmania and Adelaide. Sir Kenneth Bailey, then Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth in a Foreword to the first issue of the review emphasised the distinctive contribution that the focus of attention on federal matters would make to Australian legal literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Fred, Rodell, ‘Goodbye to Law Reviews’ (1936) 23 Virginia Law Review 38Google Scholar; republished in (1999) 73 Australian Law Journal 593 with commentary by John Gava at 597; Bernard, Hibbitts, ‘Last Writes?: Reassessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace’ (1996) 71 New York University Law Review 615Google Scholar; Symposium in (1996) 30 Akron Law Review 173; JusticeMichael, Kirby, ‘Welcome to Law Reviews’ (2002) 26 Melbourne University Law Review 1Google Scholar; John, Gava, ‘Law Reviews: Good for Judges, Bad for Law Schools?’ (2002) 26 Melbourne University Law Review 560Google Scholar; Marilyn, Pittard and Peter, Heffey, ‘Ancora Imparo: The Historical Role of the Law Review in University Scholarship’ (2003) 29 Monash University Law Review 278Google Scholar. See most recently Richard A Posner, Against the Law Reviews (2004) Legal Affairs <http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/review_posner_novdec04.msp>.

2 Kirby, above n 1, 2.

3 See Hibbitts, above n 1.

4 Filippo di Strata, quoted in Bernard, Hibbits, ‘Yesterday Once More: Skeptics, Scribes and the Demise of Law Reviews’ (1996) 30 Akron Law Review 267, 269Google Scholar.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid 270.

7 Ibid 269.

8 Edward, Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (first published 1776-1788) vol 1, 616Google Scholar.

9 Ibid 617.