호주의 법원 계층 구조와 입법부의 역할 이해하기

### 호주 법률 시스템에서 법원의 역할
* ⚖ 호주의 법원 시스템은 **의회에서 제정된 법률과 함께 주요 법의 원천**입니다.
* ⚖ 법정 소송에는 개인이나 회사 간의 분쟁을 해결하는 민사 소송과 **국가가 법을 위반한 개인을 기소하는 형사 소송**의 두 가지 주요 유형이 있습니다.
* ⚖ 뉴사우스웨일즈의 법원 계층에는 **지방법원, 지방법원, 대법원**이 있으며, **고등법원은 호주에서 가장 높은 항소법원**입니다.
* ⚖ 최근 몇 년 동안 전통적인 법원보다 덜 형식적이고 비용이 많이 드는 방식으로 특정 법률 분야를 처리하기 위해 **재판소가 설립**되었습니다.
* ⚖ 법원은 **법률을 해석**하고, 법률의 공백을 메우며, 법률이 존재하지 않는 경우 **관습법을 개발**하여 법을 만들 수 있습니다.
* ⚖ 태즈메이니아 댐 사건에 대한 고등법원의 판결은 **세계유산 지역 보호를 위한 대외 업무 권한을 확대**하여 새로운 법률을 만든 입법 해석의 사례입니다.
* ⚖ 법원은 가족법상 별거 판단 기준의 개발에서 볼 수 있듯이 **법률의 공백을 메울 수도 있습니다.**
* ⚖ 1992년 마보 사건은 법원이 **'호주 역사에 대한 변화된 이해'**를 반영하여 관습법을 변경하여 원주민의 토지 소유권을 인정하고 원주민 소유권 법안 통과를 이끌어낸 사례입니다.

재판소를 포함한 법원은 법률, 판례, 관습법에 따라 법을 만들고 해석하며, 개별 사건을 넘어 법적 결정에 영향을 미칩니다.

the legislation enacted by Parliament's is a major source of law. Courts are the other source of our law. Courts hear and decide cases. Court cases can be civil or criminal. Civil cases decide disputes between individuals, which can include companies. Criminal cases are the state against an individual who is alleged to have broken a law. In both civil and criminal cases, the courts make decisions on the cases that come before them by deciding the facts and applying the law to those facts. In the higher courts, they can also make new law. In the same way that Parliament's operate on a federal and state basis, so to the courts. We have a federal and a state court hierarchy. At the bottom of the hierarchy in New South Wales, we have the local court where most of the work of the courts takes place. This includes the Children's Court and the coroner's court. Above this are the district court and the supreme court. In the federal area, we have the federal circuit court, the federal court, and the Family Court. Overarching all the courts in Australia is the High Court, the High

Court can make decisions on state territory and federal law. It is the court that you can appeal to from the federal court, the Family Court, and the state and territory Supreme Court's. In recent years, we've seen the development of tribunals designed to be less formal and less expensive than the traditional courts. They are set up to deal with a specific area of the law. New South Wales tribunals deal with state matters such as disputes about renting, home building, guardianship, victims compensation, and review of government decisions. Federal tribunals deal with federal matters such as pensions, child support, migration, and refugees. Each court and tribunal is governed by a specific act that outlines the particular jurisdiction. There is a geographic jurisdiction, for example, New South Wales courts deal with New South Wales law, and a monetary jurisdiction, for example, the Supreme Court can deal with civil cases involving larger sums of money than the local court. The jurisdiction of some courts is limited to particular areas of law, such as the Family Court of Australia and the New

South Wales Land and Environment Court. The court hierarchy allows for decisions from the higher courts to have a flow-on effect down through the system, and for decisions of the lower courts to be appealed to a higher court. Appeals are limited; you can generally only appeal if there's been a mistake of law, a legal error that the court has made. You can't appeal to a higher court just because you don't agree with the decision; that's what the courts are there for, to make a decision. The authority of the courts and their decisions reflects their place in the hierarchy. In the lower courts, the decisions are made according to legislation and any authority or precedent from the higher courts. The decisions are important to the parties in the case but do not have wider legal ramifications. Decisions made in the higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the High Court, do have ramifications beyond the parties. These courts are deciding matters of principle that establish benchmarks or precedence, which is called the common law. Courts have been making the common law since

before Parliament began. Although most of our laws are now made by Parliament, the common law continues to operate unless and until it is overruled by legislation. We've talked about the courts making law. They do this by interpreting legislation, filling gaps in legislation, and developing the common law when there is no legislation. The court's most important lawmaking role is interpreting legislation. The High Court decision in the Tasmanian dams case, for example, was based on interpreting a phrase from section 51 of the Constitution. The Commonwealth was trying to stop the damming of the Franklin and Gordon rivers in southwestern Tasmania but lacked a direct power under the Constitution. When the area was given world environmental heritage status, the Commonwealth relied on the external affairs power to make a law to stop the dam because it had an obligation to uphold the international treaty which protects World Heritage Areas. The Tasmanian government challenged the Commonwealth's power and the matter went to the High Court. The High Court interpreted the phrase External Affairs widely enough to

include the ability to make a law to give effect to an international treaty. In this case, to stop a dam being built in Tasmania. Another way in which the courts can make law is to fill gaps in the legislation. For example, the Family Law Act states that a couple can be considered to have separated although they still actually live in the same house, but the Act doesn't say what considerations go into deciding whether or not there's a proper separation. The courts have stepped in and filled the gap. They've developed criteria that can be used to decide when a couple living in the same house have actually separated. Although most aspects of our lives are covered by legislation, the courts also make new law by developing common law rules where there is no legislation. Higher courts can also change and develop common law rules according to circumstances. The 1992 Mabo case was an example of the courts changing a common law rule to reflect the times. The High Court found that the common law rule that Australia's indigenous peoples had no existing legal system was wrong.

a changing understanding of Australia's history. The High Court decided that Australia's indigenous peoples did have previous ownership of the land, and that they continue to have a claim to land ownership after the Mabo case. Parliament passed Native Title legislation to deal with the traditional ownership that the High Court had recognized. You won't find new law being made in the local court; it only happens at the highest levels, the High Court and occasionally a state Supreme Court. Other courts that make new law beneath that. Each court follows the authority set by the higher court. That's the strength of the court system, that they're following not just the legislation, but the benchmarks referred to as precedence set by the higher courts. Remember, there is a hierarchy of courts and tribunals. Courts can make law by interpreting legislation, filling in gaps in legislation, and by making new common law.

How laws are made - Courts

Public Library Services, State Library of NSW

호주 법률 체계의 계층 구조와 관할권

의회의 입법과 법원은 호주에서 법률을 제정하고 해석하는 권한을 가진 두 가지 주요 법의 원천입니다.

호주의 법원 계층은 지방 법원, 지방 법원, 대법원, 연방 순회 법원, 연방 법원, 가정 법원 및 고등 법원으로 구성되며, 각 법원은 특정 관할권을 가지고 있습니다.

전통적인 법원 외에도 주법 또는 연방법의 특정 영역에 초점을 맞춘 덜 형식적이고 비용이 많이 드는 법적 절차를 제공하기 위해 재판소가 개발되었습니다.

사우스 웨일즈 토지 및 환경 법원에서 계층 구조의 역할

법원 계층 구조는 상급 법원에서 하급 법원으로 판결이 내려지고 법적 오류에 따라 항소할 수 있도록 합니다.

하급 법원은 법률과 판례에 따라 판결을 내리고, 상급 법원은 관습법과 법적 원칙을 확립합니다.

태즈메이니아 댐 사건에 대한 고등법원 판결에서 볼 수 있듯이 법원의 가장 중요한 역할은 법률을 해석하는 것입니다.

법을 만들고 발전시키는 데 있어 법원의 역할

법원은 태즈메이니아에서 제안된 댐의 사례에서 볼 수 있듯이 국제 조약을 국내법으로 이행하여 법을 만들 수 있습니다.

또한 가족법상 별거 기준의 개발에서 알 수 있듯이 입법 공백을 메움으로써 법을 정비할 수도 있습니다.

또한 1992년 마보 사건에서 고등법원의 판결에서 알 수 있듯이 법원은 입법 부재 시 관습법 규칙을 만들고 필요에 따라 이를 수정할 수 있습니다.

고등법원의 판결은 원주민의 토지 소유권과 토지에 대한 원주민의 지속적인 청구권을 인정한 것입니다.

고등법원의 인정에 따라 원주민 소유권 법안이 의회에서 통과되었습니다.

호주의 법원 시스템은 계층 구조로 운영되며, 고등법원이 새로운 법을 만들 때 하급 법원이 따라야 할 선례를 설정합니다.