freedoms, extensive arguments are presented, especially in the higher courts, by reference to the  decisions  in  other  jurisdictions  and  of  international  tribunals,  and  also  to  the  travaux preparatoire of the various conferences from which the instruments emerged.  The scope of fundamental rights should be readily accessible and clear to everyone, and should not have specificity  only  in  the  minds  of  rights-focussed  lawyers  and  complex  appellate  judgments.   The  seductive  simplicity  of  generalised  provisions  does  not  really  help  people  understand their rights and obligations. As I see it, ideal legal performance in today’s world would encompass a legislature, suitably resourced with sufficient time allocated to law-making, supported by agencies, also suitably resourced, co-ordinating research, consultation and drafting in accordance with clear policy direction from an informed government. That would still leave a role for the courts.  Their contributions would be limited, as reflects their circumstances.  They are confined to specific cases presented to them, they have limited resources to investigate wider policy considerations and generally lack empirical data against which to access competing contentions.  Within those limits the courts can, and do, contribute to the overall legal performance.⁵ Courts decide cases.  Often the issues are mainly factual.  Frequently, however, questions of law require determination.  They may involve the reach of the common law, the interpretation of statutes or the relationship between common law and statute law.  In making decisions on questions of law the courts may be said to clarify or develop the law.  In the perception of the unsuccessful litigant, and others who disagree with the decision, in this process the courts will be changing the law. Many  cases  in  this  category  attract  little  attention  beyond  the  immediate  parties  and  those researching  similar  cases.    These  include  interpretations  and  applications  of  established principles in new circumstances.  It may be that in the course of consideration of a case it will appear that there is a gap or inconsistency in the law or that the law is proving unsatisfactory in application.  Where a decision in the particular case can be reached without injustice the court  may  be  content  to  highlight  the  difficulty  and  invite  consideration  by  the  relevant 5 For an instructive account on the role of the courts in development of the law see Justice M H McHugh, The Judicial Method (1999) 73 ALJ 37.