The (un)common law: Legal tradition and the diverging policies of the USA and Australia toward international human rights law

Abstract

The USA and Australia have historically had similar foreign policies. Over the past several decades, however, a divergence has occurred between the two countries in one key area: policy toward international human rights law. This article examines the reason for this divergence and theorizes that Australia has been a more active participant in the international human rights regime because of its legal tradition, which facilitates the internalization of international law into society’s cultural perceptions about appropriate standards of behavior. The article concludes that while they share the same origins, there are differences in the US and Australian legal traditions that explain the two states’ differing policies on international human rights law.