This book examines the way in which judges in the top courts of ten different common law countries go about developing the law by devising new principles to allow themselves to be innovative and justice-oriented, and to ensure that human rights are universally protected. The book surveys the decisions of these top courts over the last fifteen years or so to determine how 'judicially active' they have been. It seeks to compare and contrast the different experiences and to identify those principles in accordance with which the various courts decide to develop the law. How do they interpret legislation? What use do they make of standards derived from other countries or from international law? How willing are they to make law in areas which are traditionally the preserve of elected politicians? The contributors are all experts in their own jurisdictions and have already published widely in the field of judicial activism. The jurisdictions covered include Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. Of particular interest is the chapter on the new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, which is due to come into existence in 2009, and which should draw upon the lessons which have been learned in other countries as regards the processing and deciding of appeals, and cross-pollenation of ideas from other jurisdictions.