MOVEMENTS TOWARD POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN WESTERN EUROPEAN NATIONS HAVE SPARKED RENEWED INTEREST IN THE STUDY OF FEDERAL SYSTEMS. RICHARD E JOHNSTON, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, COMPARES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HIGHEST COURTS OF AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE TREATED VARIOUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FEDERALISM SUCH AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES, TAXATION, SPENDING, TREATIES, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADE, AND COMMERCE. THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN DETERMINING THE BOUNDARIES OF DIVIDED GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND THE ROLES OF JUDGES, BOTH PAST AND PRESENT, IN ESTABLISHING THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE AND NATION IN THREE POLITICAL SYSTEMS ARE EVALUATED. AN EXPLANATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF THE THREE NATIONS REVEALS THAT CARE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CAN NOT DETERMINE THE COURSE OF FUTURE INTERPRETATIONS; THE FINAL DECISIONS LIE WITH JUDGES. THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL IN HANDLING FEDERAL-STATE PROBLEMS THAN THE TWO OTHER NATIONS. THIS HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN COURTS HAVE BEEN OVERLY ANXIOUS TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN POWER, WHILE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT VIRTUALLY HAS ABANDONED THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN THE AREAS COMPARED, ADOPTING INSTEAD A POLICY OF AFFIRMATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. THIS BOOK IS DIRECTED FOR USE BY STUDENTS OF COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. FOOTNOTES, A BIBLIOGRAPHY, AN INDEX, AND A TABLE OF CITED CASES ARE PROVIED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--JCP)