Allott, A. N.
(1957)
‘The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa’
, Modern Law Review20:
244-263
.
2.
Bankowski, Z.
(1996) ‘How Does It Feel to Be on Your Own? The
Person in the Sight of Autopoiesis’, pp.
63-80 in
D. Nelken
(ed.) Law as Communication.
Aldershot: Ashgate
.
3.
Bourdieu, P.
(1987)
‘The Force of Law: Towards a Sociology of the Juridical Field’
, Hastings Law Journal38(5):
814-853
.
4.
Cotterrell, R.
(1993) ‘Sociological Perspectives on Legal
Closure’, pp. 175-193 in
A. Norrie
(ed.) Closure or Critique: New Directions in Legal Theory.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
.
5.
Cotterrell, R.
(1995) Law’s Community: Legal Theory in
Sociological Perspective.
Oxford: Clarendon Press
.
6.
Curr, E.
(1883) Recollections of Squatting in Victoria: Then Called
the Port Phillip District (from 1841 to 1851).
Melbourne: G. Robertson
.
7.
Davis, K. C.
(1955)
‘Judicial Notice’
, Columbia Law Review55:
945-945
.
8.
Davis, K. C.
(1980) Administrative Law Treatise.
Boston: Little, Brown
.
9.
Davis, P. C.
(1987)
‘“There Is a Book Out”: An Analysis of
Judicial Absorption of Legislative Facts’
, Harvard Law Review100:
1539-1604
.
10.
Edmond, G.
(2004)
‘Thick Decisions: Expertise, Advocacy and Reasonableness in the
Federal Court of Australia’
, Oceania74(3):
190-230
.
11.
Ewald, F.
(1988) ‘The Law of Law’, pp.
36-50 in
G. Teubner
(ed.) Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society.
Berlin: de Gruyter
.
12.
Faigman, D. L.
(1999) Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in
Law.
New York: WH Freeman & Co
.
13.
Fish, S.
(1993) ‘The Law Wishes to Have a Formal
Existence’, pp. 157-174 in
A. Norrie
(ed.) Closure or Critique: New Directions in Legal Theory.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
.
14.
Foster, K. R.
and
P. W. Huber
(1999) Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal
Courts.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
.
15.
Freeman, M.
and
H. Reece
(eds) (1998) Science in Court.
Aldershot: Ashgate
.
16.
Fulcher, J.
(1997) ‘Sui Generis History? The Use of History
in Wik’, pp. 51-56 in
G. Hiley
(ed.) The Wik Case: Issues and Implications.
Sydney: Butterworths
.
17.
Gibbons, M.
,
C. Limoges
,
H. Nowotny
,
S. Schwartzmann
,
P. Scott
and
M. Trow
(1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of
Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
London: SAGE Publications
.
18.
Jasanoff, S.
(1995) Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in
America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
19.
Kelly, A.
(1965)
‘Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair’
, Supreme Court Review65:
119-119
.
20.
Kelsen, H.
(1934)
‘The Pure Theory of Law, Its Methods and Fundamental Concepts’
, Law Quarterly Review50:
474-474
.
21.
King, M.
and
C. Thornhill
(2003) Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics and
Law.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
.
22.
Lipson, L.
and
S. Wheeler
(eds) (1986) Law and the Social Sciences.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation
.
23.
Llewellyn, K.
(1931)
‘Some Realism About Realism: Rsponding to Dean Pound’
, Harvard Law Review44:
1222-1264
.
24.
Luhmann, N.
(1986) ‘The Individuality of the Individual:
Historical Meanings and Contemporary Problems’, pp.
313-325 in
T. C. Heller
,
M. Sosna
and
D. E. Wellberg
(eds) Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality and the Self
in Western Thought.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
.
25.
Luhmann, N.
(1988) ‘Closure and Openness: On Reality in the
World of Law’, pp. 335-348 in
G. Teubner
(ed.) Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society.
Berlin: de Gruyter
.
26.
Luhmann, N.
(1992)
‘Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation
of the Legal System’
, Cardozo Law Review13:
1419-1441
.
27.
Luhmann, N.
(1995) Social Systems.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
.
28.
Luhmann, N.
(2004) Law as a Social System.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
29.
Mantziaris, C.
(1999)
‘The Dual View Theory of the Corporation and the Aboriginal Corporation’
, Federal Law Review27:
283-321
.
30.
Miller, C.
(1969) The Supreme Court and the Uses of History.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
.
31.
Mingers, J.
(2002)
‘Can Social Systems Be Autopoietic? Assessing Luhmann’s
Social Theory’
, Sociological Review50(2):
278-299
.
32.
Morgan, E. M.
(1944)
‘Judicial Notice’
, Harvard Law Review57(3):
269-294
.
33.
Mosteller, R.
(1989)
‘Legal Doctrines Governing the Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Concerning Social Science Evidence’
, Law & Contemporary Problems52(4):
80-99
.
34.
Nelken, D.
(1993) ‘Are Disputes between Law and Science
Resolvable?’, pp. 104-112 in
J. F. Nijbour
,
C. R. Callen
and
N. Kwak
(eds) Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence.
Amsterdam: North Holland
.
35.
Nelken, D.
(1998) ‘A Just Measure of
Science’, pp. 11-36 in
M. Freeman
and
H. Reece
(eds) Science in Court.
Aldershot: Ashgate
.
36.
Nelken, D.
(2001)
‘Can Law Learn from Social Science?’
, Israel Law Review35:
1-20
.
37.
Nowotny, H.
,
P. Scott
and
M. Gibbons
(2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an
Age of Uncertainty.
Cambridge: Polity Press
.
38.
Odgers, S.
(2000) Uniform Evidence Law.
Sydney: Law Book Company
.
39.
O’Donovan, K.
(1993)
‘Law’s Knowledge: The Judge, the Expert, the Battered
Woman, and Her Syndrome’
, Journal of Law & Society20:
427-437
.
40.
Paterson, J.
(1996) ‘Who Is Zenon Bankowski Talking To? The
Person in the Sight of Autopoiesis’, pp.
81-104 in
D. Nelken
(ed.) Law as Communication.
Aldershot: Ashgate
.
41.
Posner, R. A.
(1990) The Problems of Jurisprudence.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
42.
Reece, H.
(ed.) (1998) Law and Science.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
43.
Reece, H.
(1999)
‘Judging Knowledge: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts’
, Social & Legal Studies8(1):
152-153
.
44.
Reilly, A.
(2000)
‘The Ghost of Truganini: Use of Historical Evidence as Proof of
Native Title’
, Federal Law Review28:
453-475
.
45.
Reynolds, H.
(1987) The Law of the Land.
Melbourne: Penguin
.
46.
Reynolds, H.
and
J. Dalziel
(1996)
‘Aborigines and Pastoral Leases: Imperial and Colonial Policy 1826-1855’
, UNSW Law Journal19:
315-377
.
47.
Ritter, D.
(1999)
‘Whither the Historians: The Case for Historians in the Native
Title Process’
, Indigenous Law Bulletin4(17):
4-6
.
48.
Rowley, C. D.
(1972) The Destruction of Aboriginal Society.
Melbourne: Penguin
.
49.
Rubin, L.
(1997)
‘Law and the Methodology of Law’
, Wisconsin Law Review:
521-565
.
50.
Scheiber, H.
(1984)
‘Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History’
, California Law Review72:
217-251
.
51.
Stehr, N.
(1994) Knowledge Societies.
London: SAGE Publications
.
52.
Teubner, G.
,
R. Nobles
and
D. Schiff
(2002) ‘The Autonomy of Law: An Introduction to
Legal Autopoiesis’, pp. 897-954 in
J. Penner
,
D. Schiff
and
R. Nobles
(eds) Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and
Materials.
London: Butterworths
.
53.
Thompson, E. P.
(1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays.
London: Merlin Press
.
54.
Tomlins, C.
(2000)
‘Framing the Field of Law’s Disciplinary Encounters: A
Historical Narrative’
, Law & Society Review34(4):
911-972
.
55.
Valverde, M.
(1996)
‘Social Facticity and the Law: A Social Expert’s
Eyewitness Account of Law’
, Social & Legal Studies5(2):
201-217
.
56.
van Krieken, R.
(2000)
‘From Milirrpum to Mabo: The High Court, Terra Nullius and Moral Entrepreneurship’
, UNSW Law Journal23(1):
63-77
.
57.
Watson, V.
(2001) Governing Interests: Miners and Indigenous People in
Arnhem Land and the Alligator Rivers Region 1911-1977.
Sydney: University of Sydney
.
58.
Wiecek, W.
(1987)
‘Clio as Hostage: The United States Supreme Court and the Uses of History’
, California Western Law Review25:
227-268
.
59.
Williams, N. M.
(1986) The Yolnqu and Their Land: A System of Land Tenure and
the Fight for Its Recognition.
Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Affairs
.
60.
Wolfe, A.
(1992)
‘Sociological Theory in the Absence of People: The Limits of
Luhmann’s Systems Theory’
, Cardozo Law Review13(5):
1729-1743
.
61.
Woodward, A. E.
(1974) The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission: Second
Report.
Canberra: Australian Goverment Publishing Service
.
