DOCSLIB.ORG

Identifying a Legal Framework for a Treaty Between Australia’S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Identifying a Legal Framework for a Treaty Between Australia’S IDENTIFYING A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR A TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA’S FIRST PEOPLES AND OTHERS Professor Asmi Wood* & Christie M. Gardiner** I INTRODUCTION For several decades, various political commitments have been made to develop a legal apparatus in Australia which recognises the agency of Indigenous people1 and which facilitates their autonomy and self-determination. These commitments have rarely yielded outcomes that sustainably advance the short to long term interests of Indigenous peoples, and often fail to address the inherent relationship injustice that exists between Indigenous peoples and the commonwealth. For instance, in June 1988, then Australian Prime Minister Mr R.J. Hawke promised a historic treaty with the Aboriginal people at the Barunga festival in the Northern Territory.2 The resulting Barunga Statement, called for a ‘Treaty recognising our [Indigenous] * Asmi Wood is the Director of the National Centre for Indigenous Studies (NCIS) at the Australian National University and teaches at the Australian National University College of Law. ** Christie Gardiner is a Lecturer at the Australian National University College of Law. 1 ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ peoples is the commonly used term in Australian to describe its first/indigenous peoples. These are clearly colonial terms (ie, terminology variously used by the settler state collectively to refer to a range of tribes and peoples often who each identify separately) and the use of these terms is not uncontentious. This paper generally (but not exclusively) employs the phrase ‘indigenous people’ for this purpose, as this is the term preferred in international instruments, including by consensus in the UN DRIP (see ‘The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2 October 2007 UN General Assembly Sixty-first session, A/RES/61/295). Damien Murphy ‘The Aboriginal rights treaty that never came: cabinet papers 1988-1989’, Sydney Morning Herald 1 January 2015, <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-aboriginal-rights-treaty-that- never-came-cabinet-papers-19881989-20141218-129yhm.html>. For the purposes of this paper, and in concert with international law, a formal statement by a current head of government is taken as being indicative of the position of that nation: Article 7(2)(a) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969] [‘VCLT’]) United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. Consequently, the fact that a Prime Minister has proposed a treaty, an idea that has survived for 30 years or so must mean that Indigenous people can reasonably expect that legal or political obstacles (if any) to a treaty can be overcome. 1 prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedom.’ The Statement hangs prominently in the Parliament House of Australia in Canberra. Despite this commitment a Treaty was not forthcoming, yet it remains an aspiration of indigenous peoples, both for its’ content and for the symbolic significance of this necessary gesture. In advancing the concept of a Treaty between Indigenous peoples and the Australian State, there are fundamental issues which need to be resolved, at law, in order to bind the parties to an agreement which ensures the progress of further productive relations between all peoples. Unfortunately, the political environment surrounding the current debate on constitutional recognition of Indigenous people has been ‘toxic’,3 a description that is likely to apply equally to treaty negotiations given domestic opposition to this.4 The issue of constitutional recognition, its form and its implications have been examined by Parliament and others.5 The broad concept of a treaty is also popular among Indigenous peoples, as popularised in a song called ‘Treaty’ in 1988. 3 Breanna Tucker, 'Toxic, childish, poor and pathetic’, The Guardian, 20 March 2013, <http://www.theguardian.com.au/story/1377269/toxic-childish-poor-and-pathetic/>; for a discussion of the legal environment see for example Asmi Wood, ‘The Confluence of Two Rivers: Constitutional Recognition of Australia’s First Peoples’ in Kelli Te Maiharoa, Heather Devere & John Synott Eds “Peacebuilding and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Experiences and Strategies for the 21st Century”, (Springer Press, 2017), 89-104; Asmi Wood, ‘Constitutional Recognition and Racial equality’ in Eds (Federation Press) In ‘Constitutional Recognition’ Jennifer Nielsen, Simon Young and Jeremy Patrick Eds (Federation Press, November 2016, pp 103-128. 4 See discussion accompanying n 23 below. 5 The Report of the Expert Panel, ‘Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in the Constitution’, January 2012; Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (JSCATSI, ‘the Committee’) of July 2014; Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (JSCATSI, ‘the Committee’) of June 2015; Marcia Langton and Megan Davis Eds in “It’s Our Country”. Indigenous arguments for meaningful constitutional recognition and reform (Melbourne University Press, 2016); ‘Constitutional Recognition’ Jennifer Nielsen, Simon Young and Jeremy Patrick Eds (Federation Press, November 2016. 2 It is expected that a proposed treaty would be between the descendants of the British Colonial Occupiers of the Australian Continent [and others who have come to Australia under their laws] (‘Settlers’) and the Continent’s First Peoples/ Nations/ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples/ Indigenous peoples (‘Indigenous peoples’) as the treaty parties. The ‘ethnic’ or racial6 compositions of the key stakeholders are complex, including in terms of law, language, culture and habit, but for convenience, this paper refers to the parties broadly as ‘the two groups’ or the ‘the two main parties’ to negotiations as appropriate.7 The treaty promised by Mr Hawke, which in principle also enjoys the support of other leaders of government and left-leaning political parties, have yet to be given form or substantive content. That is, what is currently being discussed in public is largely the concept of the two main parties entering into a treaty, through a yet unspecified process, and in some yet unspecified manner, form and content. Thus, the development of a framework for agreement making/ treaty negotiations as an essential prerequisite, can, and should, proceed in spite of the politics of the debate. The decision to enter into a treaty is clearly political,8 but one that in its execution touches on significant legal issues. The current discussions on the need or otherwise for a treaty, in what could be described as an almost clean slate in terms of legal policy, can therefore, become confused. This paper explores some of the procedural and substantive issues that will attend 6 Race is a socially constructed notion. Prichard notes that ‘the dominant view among biological scientists, anthropologists and social theorists in that the concept of ‘race is socially constructed imprecise, arbitrary and incapable of definition or scientific demonstration’: Sarah Pritchard, ‘The ‘Race’ Power in Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution’, 15 Australian Indigenous Law Review 2 (2011), 44, 50. However, the term is used here as it is part of the Australian legal diction. The legal test for indigeneity in Australia also has a racial component: Shaw & Anor v Wolf & Ors (1999) 163 ALR 205. 7 It is conceded that this shorthand can be considered problematic as it is quite reductionist of both Indigenous peoples and the Settler community, both broad groups of which are composed of multiple ethnicities, cultures and linguistic backgrounds. 8 Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. 3 the conclusion of a treaty. While important legal issues are raised they are not examined in a strict technical legal manner on the basis that the development of a coherent conceptual legal framework is the first barrier these two parties must overcome. The idea of a treaty has caused angst among some in the Settler community. Others believe that the ‘Aboriginal problem’ has been solved. Such preconceptions can result in emotive claims and counterclaims by people on all sides of the political divide. Such opinions, often in a vacuum, are difficult to substantiate or evaluate in a useful or constructive way. Thus, the discussions and creation of a legal framework for the free and transparent development of a substantive treaty is a useful, but relatively uncontentious step, in this process. While the list of issues discussed here is not exhaustive, this paper seeks to move beyond the conceptual question of the suitability of a treaty in order to highlight some of the complexities and identify some necessary steps that will need to be undertaken in order to effectively negotiate, draft and formalise a treaty. These processes and steps should be undertaken with due diligence and care if a resulting treaty is to have a chance of receiving the necessary support and acceptance in Australia. The outcome of this process is also of significant interest to the international community. A relevant but salient issue is that Indigenous people do not yet enjoy recognition or legal equality under the Australian Constitution.9 Mutual recognition between 9 Asmi Wood ‘Constitutional Recognition: A Case for Less is More’ in Marcia Langton and Megan Davis Eds in “It’s Our Country”. Indigenous arguments for meaningful constitutional recognition and reform (Melbourne University Press, 2016). pp 104-113; Constitutional recognition is in the view
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aboriginal Australians and the Common Law
    Australian Academy of Law 2020 Patron’s Address The Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC Governor of New South Wales Aboriginal Australians and the Common Law 22 October 2020 Queen’s Square – Microsoft Teams 1 Australian Academy of Law – 2020 Patron’s Address The Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC* Governor of New South Wales ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS AND THE COMMON LAW** 1. Bujari gamarruwa. Mudgingal. Babana. Gamarada. Gadigal.1 I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, on whose lands I am meeting with you this evening and acknowledge their elders past, present and emerging. 2. The title of this lecture, Aboriginal Australians and the Common Law is ambitious in its potential breadth and depth. My aim in this lecture is to provide an historical exposition of what has occurred in the common law to date. Indeed, as Governor of New South Wales, it is not appropriate to do more. It has certainly been challenging but at the same time, rewarding. 3. The rightful place of Aboriginal Australians in this country is a topic in which all Australians are, or are becoming, increasingly invested. 2 However, relationship without understanding and investment without knowledge has a hollow ring. Indeed 4 decades after the end of World War II, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany said: ‘Anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present. Whoever refuses to remember the inhumanity is prone to the risks of re-infection.’3 *The Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC is 39th Governor of New South Wales, commencing her term on 2 May 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Mabo1 Has Been Acclaimed As a Triumph of Remembering.2 the Case
    Macquarie Law Journal (2006) Vol 6 25 HOW MABO HELPS US FORGET ALEXANDER REILLY I INTRODUCTION Mabo1 has been acclaimed as a triumph of remembering.2 The case acknowledged a shift in Australian history in the 1970s and 1980s towards a greater recognition of the violence of British colonisation and the extent of Aboriginal dispossession from land. It recognised for the first time a legal basis for Indigenous claims to land based on traditional associations with ‘country’3, and it established a central role for history in the determination of native title rights. The case has led to a new level of engagement between academics from the disciplines of Law and History, and new interdisciplinary work on the relationship between law and history.4 Before Mabo, the most direct overlap between Law and History in Australia was through the work of legal history scholars, predominantly legal academics who use legal documents from the past to understand society and its law, and to provide a particular historical context for analysing current developments in the law. Although legal history is drawn upon occasionally by the courts to add to their Senior Lecturer in Law, Macquarie University. Earlier drafts of this article benefited from the generous comments of Lawrence McNamara, Katherine Biber, Andrew Buck, the anonymous referees of the Macquarie Law Journal, and the careful editorial work of the student editor, Shireen Daft. My sincere thanks to Ann Curthoys, Ann Genovese and Larissa Behrendt for the opportunity to collaborate with them on their Australian Research Council funded project on the role of history in Indigenous Rights litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning Traditional Ecological Knowledge
    COLLECTIVE LEGAL AUTONOMY CONCERNING TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THEIR LINKAGES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN COLOMBIA AND AUSTRALIA NATALIA RODRÍGUEZ-URIBE LLB Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá–Colombia) MIntEnvLaw, LLM Macquarie University (Sydney–Australia) MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL Macquarie University, Sydney–Australia This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law Submitted: August 2013 Approved: March 2014 1 COLLECTIVE LEGAL AUTONOMY CONCERNING TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE NATALIA RODRÍGUEZ URIBE 2 COLLECTIVE LEGAL AUTONOMY CONCERNING TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE NATALIA RODRÍGUEZ URIBE TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. i Abstract ................................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. vi List of Acronyms, Abbreviations and Short Titles .............................................................ix Table of Cases .....................................................................................................................xi Human Rights Treaties Ratified by Australia ................................................................. xiii Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Justice at the Edge: Hearing the Sound of Silence
    Kim Economides*, Aaron Timoshanko** and Leslie S Ferraz*** JUSTICE AT THE EDGE: HEARING THE SOUND OF SILENCE ABSTRACT This article examines a novel emerging trend in the access to justice movement. This latest trend is best seen as a counter-wave — or rip current — that seeks to incorporate knowledge and experience found at the periphery of the legal system in order to advance the theory and practice that underpins access to justice. Drawing on recent legal develop- ments pioneered in Aotearoa/New Zealand that grant personhood status to natural objects, we report on the Maori world view that treats natural objects in much the same way as respected family members. This new perspective is indicative of the counter-wave in action and illustrates how legal principles derived from the periphery — in this case rooted in the First Law of the Maori people — are being recognised and incorporated into the mainstream legal system, holding the potential to advance access to justice for First Nations peoples whilst also bringing other benefits to the wider society. Focusing primarily on Australia, Brazil and Canada, * Professor Emeritus, Flinders University, Honorary Professor of Law at University of Southern Queensland, Adjunct Research Fellow, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University, Australia and Visiting Professor, Department of Law, University of Cyprus ([email protected]). ** Lecturer in Law at University of Southern Queensland, Australia (https://orcid. org/0000-0002-4910-6100 | [email protected]). *** Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Graduate Program on International Relations (‘PPGRI’) at Federal University of Bahia (‘UFBA’) and empirical research consultant for organi- sations such as Institution for Economic Applied Research (‘IPEA’), the Brazilian Ministry of Justice and the United Nations Development Program (‘UNDP’) (leslie.
    [Show full text]
  • MLL110 Legal Principles Exam Notes
    MLL110 Legal Principles Exam Notes Contents Topic 1. The Law in Practice and Australian Legal System Study Notes: Ch. 1 (s 1 & 2 only) & 8 Topic 2. Sources of Law and Legal Institutions Study Notes: Ch. 2, 3 & 4 Topic 3. Legal Research Skills Study Notes: Ch. 5 Topic 4. Case Law and the Doctrine of Precedent Study Notes: Ch. 10 Topic 5. Statutory Interpretation Study Notes: Ch. 11 Topic 6. Legal Writing and Communication Study Notes: Ch. 6 Topic 7. Lifecycle of a Legal Dispute Study Notes: Ch. 3 Topic 8. Access to Justice and Indigenous Rights Study Notes: Ch. 9 Topic 9. Professional Responsibility Study Notes: Ch. 12 Definition Case/Act Important Wording 100% Need to Know Topic 1. The Law in Practice and Australian Legal System Chapter 1 – Learning Law: How can I develop a legal mind? Section 1: Law as a Discipline • Law, in contemporary Western societies such as Australia, is formally an autonomous discipline • A benefit of this system is that one legal system applies to all people in one country • Law is a narrow, focused, succinct, judicious and a frill-free process of thinking and writing Section 2: Legal Reasoning Thinking like a lawyer: • Non-assumptive thinking: resisting jumping to conclusions, or many assumptions • Facts over emotions • Tolerance of ambiguity – there is no black and white answer • Ability to make connections between facts, documents and laws • Verbal mapping and ordering: being able to structure thoughts and opinions, and express them orally e.g. ‘I have three points to make. First…Second…’ • Automatic devil’s
    [Show full text]
  • 780 UNSW Law Journal Volume 28(3)
    780 UNSW Law Journal Volume 28(3) CONTRACT, OPPRESSION AND AGREEMENTS WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAVID A WISHART∗ I PREFACE ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’ This cliché has an obvious and depressing application to the relations between Indigenous peoples and settler communities. There are many examples, from George Augustus Robinson’s well-meaning attempts in the early part of the 19th century to ‘protect’ the Aborigines of Tasmania, now viewed by many as the crucial act of genocide, to perhaps even the Canadian Indian Act itself, which creates a cultural dependency now too pervasive to repeal. Perhaps the best example is the Maori (or Native) Land Court, set up by the Native Land Court Act 1880 (NZ) in New Zealand. In the first half of the 19th century, Maori had remarkable economic success.1 Common property was put to productive use by strong, centrally controlled firms in the form of family units. Competitive processes, even if violent, were well understood. External pressures were able to be resisted yet the challenges of radical technological change could be met. However, none of this withstood the lack of recognition of tribal land ownership in 19th century British law. In the middle of that century agricultural developments required the raising of large amounts of capital but this was rendered inaccessible to the Maori because security could not be given over the land: the Maori held land through layered ∗ Senior lecturer, La Trobe University, Australia. This essay has been presented at a number of conferences, mainly of the Law and Society kind (Brisbane, 2000; Harrison Hot Springs, BC, Canada, 2005) but also at REGNET, Canberra, 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 JUDGE WILLIS, BONJON and the RECOGNITION of ABORIGINAL LAW. Janine Rizzetti Introduction the Case of R V Bonjon Could Have
    JUDGE WILLIS, BONJON AND THE RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL LAW. Janine Rizzetti Introduction The case of R v Bonjon could have been one of the foundational cases in Indigenous legal autonomy. It touched on all the big early 19th century legal questions regarding Indigenous Australians: the legal status of British settlement, whether Aborigines could be said to have their own law, and whether British law applied in crimes committed between Aboriginal people themselves. It could, too, have been the most significant case in the career of Mr Justice John Walpole Willis. But it was to be neither a foundational case, nor a career highlight. Instead, if R v Bonjon is known at all, it exists as an aberration, quickly over-ruled at the time, and often referred to in passing or even consigned to a footnote in later discussions of the amenability of Indigenous Australians to British law. The case was heard in September 1841 before Willis in his capacity as the first resident Supreme Court judge for the district of Port Phillip, known as Victoria since 1851. Willis, who is best known for his irascibility and subsequent dismissal from office was perceived, both at the time and later, to be no particular friend to Aboriginal people. Yet in Bonjon Willis expressed an argument that was to have resonances in the Mabo decision and Paul Keating’s Redfern Address- both in 1992. In a departure from the judgment given by others in The Crown v Murrell five years earlier, Willis argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over crimes committed by Aborigines against one another.
    [Show full text]
  • European Responses to Indigenous Violence in the Tasman World, C.1769-1850S
    ‘Of Red War and Little Else’: European Responses to Indigenous Violence in the Tasman World, c.1769-1850s Samuel Gordon Gardiner Ritchie A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Victoria University of Wellington 2013 ii iii For my Michelle and our Matilda Dylan arohanui, arohamai iv Abstract Europeans responded to indigenous internecine violence in a variety of ways in the Tasman world from first contact to the middle of the nineteenth cen- tury. Whereas extant historiography has previously addressed European responses to Māori and Aboriginal violence in geographic and temporal iso- lation, a comparison spanning time and space augments knowledge of these responses. Violence was not the only aspect of indigenous societies Europe- ans responded to, nor was indigenous violence the only justification for colonisation. However an investigation of the ways in which Europeans rep- resented and responded to indigenous violence enables a better understand- ing of the processes of the colonisation of the Tasman world. Indigenous internecine violence included cannibalism, infanticide, inter- gender violence, and inter-tribal warfare. Through a wide variety of Euro- pean observations of this violence, this thesis identifies an initial conceptu- alisation of both New Zealand Māori and Aboriginal peoples of Australia as violent, cannibal ‘savages’. This conceptualisation was used to justify both colonisation and the related evangelical and colonial administrative attempts to suppress indigenous violence, as internecine violence was deemed ‘un- civilised’, unchristian, and unacceptable. Europeans attempted to suppress indigenous violence as it was seen both as an impediment to colonisation and, relatedly, as an inhibitor to the ‘redemption’ of indigenous peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Promise of Mabo: an Update on the Legal Struggle for Land Rights in Australia with Particular Reference to the Ward and Yorta Yorta Decisions
    THE LOST PROMISE OF MABO: AN UPDATE ON THE LEGAL STRUGGLE FOR LAND RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE WARD AND YORTA YORTA DECISIONS Janice Gray1 Faculty of Law University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales 2052 Australia Email: [email protected] Abstract I Resume In 1992, the Mabo decision was handed down by the High Court of Aus­ tralia. The judgement was heralded as marking a great leap forward in the historico-Iegal struggle of Indigenous rights in or in relation to land. This paper argues that the case symbolised hope, aspiration and a height­ ened willingness, on the part of the judiciary, to respond to racial and legal injustice. Yet, the paper also concludes that the promise contained in Mabo has not been fulfilled and that more recent decisions of the High Court, such as Ward and Yorla Yorla, have helped undermine that hope and promise, so much so that the pursuit of Native title might not be the most beneficial course available to those seeking greater land justice. En 1992, la High Court de I'Australie a rendu Ie jugement Mabo, quiaete salue comme un grandbond en avant dans la lutte historique et juridique pour les droits territoriaux des Autochtones. La presente communica­ tion met de I'avant que Ie cas Mabo a symbolise I'~espoir et les aspira;. tions des Aborigenes, ainsi qu'une bienveillance accrue de la part du systeme judiciaire de reagir aus injustices raciales etjuridiques. Pourtant, I'auteure conclut que la promesse contenue dans Ie jugement Mabo n'a pas ete realisee et que les decisions plus recentes· de la High Court, telles que les jugements Ward et Yorla Yorla, ont sape quelque peu cet espoir et cette promiesse, a telle enseigne que la poursuite des·droits de propriete autochtones pourrait ne pas etre Ie meilleur moyen a la disposition des personnes et des groupes qui recherchent la justice en matiere de revendications territoriales.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Peter Mungett Born out of the Allegiance of the Queen, Belonging to a Sovereign and Independent Tribe of Ballan
    The case of Peter Mungett Born out of the allegiance of the Queen, belonging to a sovereign and independent tribe of Ballan Dr Fred Cahir and Dr Ian D Clark ‘The case of Peter Mungett: Born out of the allegiance of the Queen, belonging to a sovereign and independent tribe of Ballan’, Provenance: The Journal of Public Record Office Victoria, issue no. 8, 2009. ISSN 1832-2522. Copyright © Fred Cahir and Ian D Clark. This is a peer reviewed article. Dr Fred Cahir is a lecturer in the School of Behavioural Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ballarat. Fred has a Masters and Doctorate in Victorian Aboriginal history and was the recepient of the Australian Historical Association’s Alan Martin Award in 2008 for his PhD thesis, ‘Black Gold: A History of the Role of Aboriginal People on the Goldfields of Victoria, 1850-1870’. He lectures in Indigenous History and Indigenous Health. Dr Ian D Clark is an Associate Professor in Tourism in the School of Business at the University of Ballarat. He has a PhD in Aboriginal historical geography from Monash University. His areas of interest include Victorian Aboriginal history, cultural heritage management, attractions management, Indigenous tourism, the history of tourism, and Victorian toponyms. Abstract Introduction This paper is concerned with the issue of the This paper is concerned with the jurisdiction of jurisdiction of the British colonial criminal law over the British colonial criminal law over Indigenous Indigenous Australians, particularly in the area Australians, particularly in the area of serious offences of serious offences such as murder and rape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inherent Right of Aboriginal Self-Government in Australia
    THE INHERENT RIGHT OF ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA by OLIVIA McLEOD BARR LL.B. (Dist.), University of Western Australia, 2002 B.A., University of Western Australia, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (The Faculty of Law) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIV^FJSrrrOf^ BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2004 © Olivia McLeod Barr, 2004. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA F AC ULTY'sQF GRADUAT E?ST U M ES| Library Authorization In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. u c\ rr f)(f~s,« Iff. % 11? / oS fo f Name of Author (please print) Dat*e_ / (dd/mm/yyyyi i/ / )\ ' Title of Thesis: Degree: Yea r: lOO j _J3gpartmont of— The University of Britishi ColumbiColumbia I Vancouver, BC Canada grad ubc ca/formsPformlD^HS ' * ' page 1 of 1. , '-'lastUpdated \6-Aug-04 ABSTRACT The relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the rest of contemporary Australian society is bittersweet. While Australians have embraced some aspects of Aboriginal culture - especially in art and sport - governments and the courts cling stubbornly to colonial attitudes when it comes to matters of justice and civil and political rights.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genealogy of Native Title
    THINKING JURISDICTIONALLY: A GENEALOGY OF NATIVE TITLE SHAUNNAGH DORSETT A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Shaunnagh Dorsett 2005 Abstract In Mabo v. State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 C.L.R. 1, the majority of the High Court held that ‘native title’ had survived the acquisition of sovereignty over the Australian continent and is ‘recognised’ by the common law. However, all the judgments failed to articulate clearly either the nature of native title as a legal form, and the relationship of that legal form to the common law, or what is meant by ‘recognition’. Twelve years later the High Court has still not provided a satisfactory understanding of any of these matters. The central problem investigated by this thesis is the nature of that relationship and of the legal interest of native title. It is contended that this relationship can be understood and ordered as a matter of jurisdiction. This thesis seeks to recuperate a substantive concept of jurisdiction, and specifically of a particular jurisdiction, that of the common law, and to demonstrate how the interest of native title results from the jurisdictional relationship between common law and indigenous law. Part I is a genealogy of native title, drawn out through a history of ideas about common law jurisdiction. It is an account of the legal practice of jurisdiction, through a conceptual elaboration of a particular jurisdiction: the common law. This part traces the history of the common law from its origins in a pluralistic, fragmented, jurisdictional landscape, to its current position as the ‘law of the land’.
    [Show full text]