Problems similar to those that have, for many years, occupied the courts of the United States, Canada and Australia in interpreting a federal charter now confront the judicial arm of the European Community. Professor Zines develops a comparison between the approach that has found favour in the European Court and the approach of the courts of those Federations, although he admits that such a comparison has innate limitations. From a study of the revelant cases Professor Zines concludes that the European Court, by adopting a functional approach, has strengthened community rather than state interests. He discusses in detail how the Court has achieved this result by relying on the broad economic and political objects which are recognised as underlying the Treaty, rather than by strict legal construction of its provisions.

Professor Nettheim's answer to this question involves a rigorous examination of legislation and judgments from the eighteenth century on. The reluctance of courts and legislatures to protect servicemen from their employer, the Crown, in the matters of remuneration and termination of service is criticized. The right-lessness of servicemen is presented as being not only inequitable, but also incompatible with the image of military service as a career, and with the related need to attract qualified personnel.

In an examination of the Commonwealth Government's power to enact social welfare legislation, Professor Sackville explores the tendency toward federal control of this field since 1901 and the judicial reaction to it. His conclusion is that although certain of the restrictions imposed upon Commonwealth freedom of action by the High Court have been removed by constitutional amendment, the trend towards a wider concept of Commonwealth involvement in community welfare schemes may well exceed the present limits upon Commonwealth legislative competence; and he looks to the Constitutional Convention now in progress as the possible prelude to an era in which extension of these limits might more readily take place.

Mr Hamilton's examination' of the Australian Government's power under s. 51 (xxxi.) of the Constitution begins with an analysis of judicial interpretation of the conceptsof “property” and “acquisition”. After drawing comparisons with the law relating to compulsory acquisition in the United States and Britain, he proceeds to suggest certain extensions of the definitions arrived at and to propose a test for “acquisition”, viz, whetherthe taking is for the “use and service of the Crown”. He concludes with awarning that some development of the law is required to combat any possible tendency toward “back door” acquisition by regulation.

There are indications that Australia may shortly accede to and ratify the United Nations 1958 (New York) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This Convention, which has recently been the subject of a study by UNCITRAL, provides for the contracting parties to recognize and enforce awards made in the course of arbitration in foreign countries. Should the Government decide to ratify the Convention the manner of putting it into effect in Australia may pose some constitutional problems, and this comment discusses some alternatives open to the Government, bearing in mind the requirements of the Australian Constitution.