首先，将对一些案例进行分析，以了解这项立法的影响。“R Burgess:前parte henry 1936年55 CLR 608”的案例对理解外部事务权力的作用非常有用，特别是第51(i)条和宪法第51(xxix)条。在这种情况下，亨利是一个度假的飞行员。然而，他的执照被吊销了。几天后，亨利开了一架飞机。由于这一点，对亨利的违反规定被判以航空导航法规为依据。该法律明确规定无执照的人不得驾驶飞机。亨利曾面对并想要分析监管的宪法有效性。在对外事务方面，没有任何一种权力是授予英联邦制定航空条例的。这是在宪法框架之前完成的。英联邦认为，这些规则是根据与外部事务一致的国际公约规定的。大多数人认为，联邦有权利制定依照国际条约的立法。该小组的莱瑟姆·CJ驳斥了试图将外交事务从遵守当地法律中排除在外的观点。小组的少数人采取了更具体的方法。迪克森J认为，英联邦有能力通过一系列立法来实施这些条约。在此分析中探讨了宪法作用的局限性。因此，有人认为条约的主题必须是国际性的。即使是坚持对外部事务权力的广泛看法，法院也指出，对《条约》的各项公约的规定并不会对土地的规制产生影响。另一个有趣的案例是Koowarta的种族歧视案件。
Initially, there will be analysis of some cases to comprehend the impact of this legislation. The case of “A R Burgess: ex parte henry 1936 55 CLR 608” is useful to comprehend the role of the external affairs power, specifically section 51 (i) and section 51 (xxix) of the constitution. In this case, Henry was an aviator by vocation. However, his license was suspended. Within a couple of days, Henry drove a plane. Owing to this, a breach regulations conviction was given to Henry that was based on Air Navigation Regulations. This law explicitly stated that the unlicensed person must not fly an aircraft. Henry had confronted and wanted to analyse the constitutional validity of the regulation. With respect to the external affairs, there is no expressed power that is given to the Commonwealth to enact aviation regulation. This was done before the framing of the constitution. The commonwealth argued that the rules were pursuant to the international convention which was in accordance with the external affairs. The majority accepted that the Commonwealth had the right to enact legislations that were pursuant to the international treaty. Latham CJ of the panel dismissed the arguments that attempted to exclude the role of the external affairs from adhering to the local laws. The minority of the panel took a more specific approach. It was argued by Dixon J that Commonwealth had the power to implement the treaties through a series of legislations. The limitation of the role of the constitution was probed in this analysis. Hence, it was argued that the subject matter of the treaty had to be international in character. Even by adhering to the broad view of the external affairs power, courts states that the regulation of the ground does not give effect to the various conventions of the treaty. Another interesting case was the racial discrimination case by Koowarta.