Thus the task for the Council of Jurists will often be to advise in a highly fluid context in which the technically ‘correct’ assessment of the asserted rule is that it does not yet have the status of binding customary law. The consequence of such a ‘hard’ law approach is that advice based upon it will fail to take into account evolving principles of probable future force. A more robust and creative approach has been supported by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. At the Seventh meeting of the APF, Mr Brian Burdekin of the UNHCHR argued that an informed and creative judiciary could be willing to understand the dynamic nature of international law and to take judicial notice of evolving principles. A recent example has been provided by Australia’s High Court in the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh ((1995) 183 CLR 273) (Teoh Case) in which the majority of the Court found that there is a “legitimate expectation” that administrative officials will inform themselves about treaty obligations accepted by Australia. The importance of this decision lies in the fact that officials should take into account treaties to which Australia is a party even where Parliament has yet to provide a legislative means of applying those principles in domestic law. The Teoh case is illustrative of a universal phenomenon under which States sign and ratify human rights treaties but fail to implement those treaties fully or appropriately in domestic law. The potential role of a creative and informed judiciary in taking notice of such treaties in the absence of implementing legislation remains controversial however. With these complexities in mind, the Council of Jurists might appropriately state both the clear “hard’ law insofar as it exists in treaties and custom and then explain the evolving principles or ‘soft’ law that are thought likely to create or stimulate new laws. Evidences of custom As a practical matter, advice as to the status of a customary rule will require documentation of State practice through the following kinds of evidence. • • • Practices of international organs including the National Labour Organisation, United Nations General Assembly and Security Council and specialised agencies. The legal effect of a UN General Assembly resolution is highly controversial. For a resolution to be evidence of custom, it will be necessary to show a strong adherence to the asserted rule, including that of the most affected States (Texaco Case). Jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals including the International Court of Justice, arbitral tribunals, ad hoc war crimes tribunals, International Criminal Court, mixed claims commissions, WTO’s Appellate Body and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea State legislation. 34