International humanitarian law is a subject of universal importance and relevance. Since 1974, the problems of restatement and development have engaged the attention of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts.

In this article, Professor J. G. Starke, Q.C. surveys developments in international humanitarian law over the last quarter century and examines in detail Australia's contribution to those developments. The process by which the idea of “laws of war” has come to be superseded by the concept of international humanitarian law is outlined, while reference is also made to the principal sources of international humanitarian law. Australia's interest in international humanitarian law since World War II is discussed, as is the background to the present continuing Geneva Conference and proceedings at its first three sessions in 1974, 1975 and 1976. The contribution of Australia to the work of the Geneva Conference is thoroughly examined. In particular, the stance of the Australian government on various issues before the Conference is set forth in detail. The article also assesses Australia's contribution to the development of international humanitarian law.

One of the most important sections of the Trade Practices Act is section 45, which concerns restraint of trade. Dr Pengilley begins by outlining the provisions of the Trade Practices Act dealing with restraint of trade and the role of the Trade Practices Commission in relation to those provisions and in comparison to the courts. Detailed analysis is then given to numerous decisions, from a number of jurisdictions, relevant to the interpretation of section 45. Extensive examination is also made of a large number of Trade Practices Commission decisions regarding clearance or authorisation of conduct which is, or may be, contrary to section 45. The article concludes by discussing and assessing the implications of the High Court's only decision to date on the interpretation of section 45.

Whether words in the singular include the plural or whether words in the plural include the singular is a common problem of statutory interpretation. Acts interpretation legislation of the States and the Commonwealth offer slightly varying presumptions for dealing with the problem. Professor Sawer analyses these presumptions and their application in numerous cases. As well, reforms that would lead to greater clarity and uniformity of such legislation are suggested.

The second part of the article explores the special problems regarding singulars and plurals in the context of the Constitution and, in particular, section 57 which provides for the resolution of deadlocks between the Senate and the House of Representatives with regard to “any proposed law”. The High Court's resolution of some of the problems raised when more than one proposed law is the subject of disagreement between the Houses of Parliament is exhaustively analysed. In addition, solutions are offered to a number of judicially unanswered questions relating to section 57 of the Constitution.