The consensual norm on the High Court of Australia : 1904–2001

Narayan, Paresh Kumar and Smyth, Russell 2005, The consensual norm on the High Court of Australia : 1904–2001, International political science review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 147-168, doi: 10.1177/0192512105050379.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title The consensual norm on the High Court of Australia : 1904–2001
Author(s) Narayan, Paresh KumarORCID iD for Narayan, Paresh Kumar
Smyth, Russell
Journal name International political science review
Volume number 26
Issue number 2
Start page 147
End page 168
Total pages 23
Publisher Sage Publications
Place of publication London, England
Publication date 2005
ISSN 0192-5121
Notes This article applies cointegration and error-correction testing to re-examine Smyth’s (2002) conclusion that there is no consensual norm on the High Court of Australia (High Court). While Smyth (2002) concluded there was no consensual norm on the High Court using data up to 1975, we find that dissenting opinions and concurring opinions on the High Court are cointegrated once Smyth’s (2002) dataset is updated to 2001. In Smyth (2002) it was suggested that a consensual norm never emerged on the High Court because the institutional arrangements were hostile to building consensus. This entails defining "consensual norm" to mean a norm where there is a high level of consensus. But, this interpretation of how the term "consensual norm" was used in Caldeira and Zorn (1998) is incorrect. Instead Caldeira and Zorn (1998) use the term consensual norm to refer to a prevailing norm where there is some level of consensus, which could be either high or low. We offer an explanation for our findings in this article which is consistent with this reading of Caldeira and Zorn (1998). In light of the long tradition of seriatim opinion writing on the High Court, we interpret our findings as being consistent with the existence of a low consensus equilibrium, at least relative to the US Supreme Court before the 1940s.
Language eng
DOI 10.1177/0192512105050379
Field of Research 160601 Australian Government and Politics
180120 Legal Institutions (incl Courts and Justice Systems)
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2005, International Political Science Association SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Persistent URL

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Business and Law
School of Accounting, Economics and Finance
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 10 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 9 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 738 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 02 Mar 2010, 11:30:22 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact