150 years after Confederation, Canada is known around the world for its social diversity and its commitment to principles of multiculturalism. But the road to contemporary Canada is a winding one, a story of division and conflict as well as union and accommodation. In Canada's Odyssey, renowned scholar Peter H. Russell provides an expansive, accessible account of Canadian history from the pre-Confederation period to the present day. By focusing on what he calls the "three pillars" of English Canada, French Canada, and Aboriginal Canada, Russell advances an important view of our country as one founded on and informed by "incomplete conquests." It is the very incompleteness of these conquests that have made Canada what it is today, not just a multicultural society but a multinational one. Featuring the scope and vivid characterizations of an epic novel, Canada's Odyssey is a magisterial work by an astute observer of Canadian politics and history, a perfect book to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

"Essential Readings in Canadian Constitutional Politics" introduces students, scholars, and practitioners to classic authors and writings on the principles of the Canadian Constitution as well as to select contemporary material. To complement rather than duplicate the state of the field, it deals with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with Canadian mega-constitutional politics in passing only, focusing instead on institutions, federalism, intergovernmental relations, bilingualism and binationalism, the judiciary, minority rights, and constitutional renewal. Many of the selections reverberate well beyond Canada's borders, making this volume an unrivalled resource for anyone interested in constitutional governance and democratic politics in diverse societies.

One of the most important but least examined aspects of the Canadian judicial system is the dual structure of civil and criminal trial courts. Canada's Trial Courts examines the co-existence, in every province, of superior courts (presided over by federally appointed judges) and 'lower' courts (staffed by provincially appointed judges). Combining both political and legal analysis, this is the first book to provide an in depth study of the evolution and operation of Canada's trial courts. This collection of essays begins with an exploration of the constitutional origins of Canada's integrated court system and the failure of federal and provincial governments to cooperate in its development. Following are discussions of a number of contemporary reform projects in various jurisdictions, including Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Nunavut, as well as examinations of competing visions of how Canada's trial courts should be organized in the future. To put the issue in a comparative perspective, the concluding section provides examples of how trial courts have been restructured in the United Kingdom and the state of California. Proposing a range of practical alternatives to the present system, the volume offers a ground-breaking legal analysis that addresses constitutional obstacles to trial court reform, and assesses the political factors that influence reform at the judicial level. Featuring distinguished contributors from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, Canada's Trial Courts offers a comprehensive and up-to-date examination of an important but neglected issue that ultimately has a profound impact on the quality of justice that Canadians experience.

A judicial revolution occurred in 1992 when Australia's highest court discarded a doctrine that had stood for two hundred years, that the country was a" terra nullius" - a land of no one - when the white man arrived. The proceedings were known as the Mabo Case, named for Eddie Koiki Mabo, the Torres Strait Islander who fought the notion that the Australian Aboriginal people did not have a system of land ownership before European colonization. The case had international repercussions, especially on the four countries in which English-settlers are the dominant population: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

In "Recognizing Aboriginal Title," Peter H. Russell offers a comprehensive study of the Mabo case, its background, and its consequences, contextualizing it within the international struggle of Indigenous peoples to overcome their colonized status. Russell weaves together an historical narrative of Mabo's life with an account of the legal and ideological premises of European imperialism and their eventual challenge by the global forces of decolonization. He traces the development of Australian law and policy in relation to Aborigines, and provides a detailed examination of the decade of litigation that led to the Mabo case.

Mabo died at the age of fifty-six just five months before the case was settled. Although he had been exiled from his land over a dispute when he was a teenager, he was buried there as a hero. "Recognizing Aboriginal Title" is a work of enormous importance by a legal and constitutional scholar of international renown, written with a passion worthy of its subject - a man who fought hard for his people and won.

The global expansion in judicial power has led to a growing interest in the way judges are chosen. Reform of the judicial selection process is on the political agenda in many countries but the nature of that process differs according to the type of process used - whether a career judiciary, an elected judiciary (direct and indirect), appointment by the executive, or a hybrid system. The main aim of this volume is to analyse common issues arising from increasing judicial power in the context of different political and legal systems, including those in North America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and Asia. The contributors seek to assess the strengths and weaknesses of structural and procedural reforms being proposed or implemented. Particularly important issues include the growing pressure to rethink the balance between judicial independence and accountability and the growing recognition of the importance of selecting judiciaries with a greater diversity in composition. Edited by Kate Malleson and Peter H. Russell, the volume marks the first time an analysis of judicial selection in such a wide range of different systems has been undertaken. It will interest anyone concerned with the global shift of political power toward the judiciary. Contributors: Jim Allen Sufian Hemed Bukurura Leny De Groot Francois du Bois Antoine Garapon Mahmoud Hamad Elizabeth Handsley Colin Hawes Christine Landfried Ruth Mackenzie Kate Malleson Derek Matyszakv Ted Morton David O'Brien Alan Paterson Marie Provine Peter H. Russell Eli Salzberger Phillipe Sands Michael Tolley Alexei Trochev Mary Volcansek

This collection of essays by leading scholars of constitutional law looks at a critical component of constitutional democracy--judicial independence--from an international comparative perspective. Peter H. Russell's introduction outlines a general theory of judicial independence, while the contributors analyze a variety of regimes from the United States and Latin America to Russia and Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Japan, and South Africa. Russell's conclusion compares these various regimes in light of his own analytical framework.