The Women's Court of Canada, Rewriting equality, recrire l'egalite.
7.
HunterPatricia EastealMcGlynnClareRackleyErika (eds), Feminist Judgments: From theory to practice (Hart Publishing, 2010).
8.
University of Queensland, Australian Feminist Judgments Project: Re-imagining and re-inventing Australian court decisions. Methodology <http://www.law.uq.edu.au/afjp-methodology>.
9.
HunterRosemary, ‘The Power of Feminist Judgments?’ (2012) 20(2) Feminist Legal Studies135, 137.
10.
BerryThomas, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Bell Tower, 1999).
11.
CullinanCormac, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (Green Books, 2003).
12.
MaloneyMichelleBurdonPeter (eds), Wild Law: In Practice (Routledge, 2014); BurdonPeter (ed), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence (Wakefield Press, 2011).
The hypothetical judgment is available at PrestonBrian J, Green Sea Turtles by their representative, Meryl Streef Applicants v the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia Respondents Mock Trial judgment 18 February 2032 (18 February 2012) <http://ebookbrowsee.net/edo-mock-trial-judge-s-decision-pdf-d344113519>.
18.
JohnsFleur, ‘On writing dangerously’ (2004) 26Sydney Law Review473, 480.
19.
See DerridaJacques, ‘Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”’ in CornellDrucillaRosenfeldMichelCarlsonDavid Gray (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice (Routledge, 1992).
20.
HunterRosemaryMcGlynnClareRackleyErika, ‘Feminist Judgments: An introduction’ in HunterMcGlynnRackley, above n 7, 8.
World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, Proposal Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (22 April 2010) <http://pwccc.wordpress.com/programa>.
24.
CoverRobert, ‘The Folktales of Justice: Tales of Jurisdiction’ in MinnowMarthaRyanMichaelSaratAustin (eds), Narrative, Violence and the Law. The Essays of Robert Cover (University of Michigan Press, 1992) 201.
25.
Ibid200.
26.
Ibid201.
27.
Ibid199.
28.
SarmasLisa, ‘Storytelling and the Law: A case study of Louth v Diprose’ (1994) 19Melbourne University Law Review701, 727.