Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2011
Peter Karsten asks why there might be a greater comparative propensity among CANZ historians than among those of the United States. Part of the reason may lie in the legal education many of us in Australia received, and in the formal legal status of many commonwealth countries until recently. As recently as the early 1970s, Australian law students were taught that English law was as significant as that made in the Australian courts. Appeals from the Australian Supreme Courts to the Privy Council were finally abolished only in 1986. From that time onward, there was a drive within the law schools to find differences from England, to look toward comparisons with other places than England.
1. See Karsten, Peter, “The CANZ Approach to Legal History,” Law and History Review 21 (Fall 2003): 615–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. See Rosemary Hunter, “Australian Legal Histories in Context,” ibid., 607–14.