Sentences with phrase «indigenous system of law»

Prior to the Mabo decision, the Indigenous system of law and culture was seen as inferior to the Western system, Indigenous property rights were vulnerable to extinguishment or impairment under the common law.

Prior to Mabo, the indigenous system of law and culture was [deleted: seen as inferior to the Western system, and indigenous property rights were vulnerable to extinguishment or impairment under] not recognised by the common law.

Not exact matches

The eighth indicator, from Banks and Textor, reflects a characterization (with the help of a legal scholar) of each nation's legal system as ranging from «indigenous» (indicating low development) to «common law» (reflecting high development).

«We are also troubled by the lack of accountability for policing and justice system responses to violence against Indigenous women and girls,» says Kendra Milne, Director of Law Reform.

Allocations include: nearly $ 4.8 million in additional annual funding for legal aid, with a focus on indigenous and family law services; $ 3.8 million per year to fund expansion of Parents Legal Centres; $ 5 million more per year for sheriff services and court staff to help reduce delays in the court system; and an additional $ 3.3 million annually for government initiatives related to family dispute resolution services and increasing digital access to justice services.

The author also discusses the blood quantum rule, cultural appropriation, Indigenous use of intellectual property laws, Two - Spirit identities (Indigenous transgender individuals), the landmark Delgamuukw and Tsilhqot» in cases (recognition of Aboriginal title), non-benign myths about Indigenous peoples, the six - volume Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) final report on the residential school system where at least 6,000 Indigenous children died, Canada's Stolen Generations (between 1960 and 1990, 70 - 90 % of Indigenous children in Canada were removed from their homes and placed into non-Indigenous homes), Inuit relocations, the issue of access to safe drinking water for First Nations communities, the five - volume report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Indigenous lands, education, treaties, and treaty - making.

Recommendation 50, the lead recommendation in the section on «Equity for Aboriginal People in the Legal System,» calls upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal organizations, «to fund the establishment of Indigenous law institutes for the development, use, and understanding of Indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the unique cultures of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.»

The TRC Recommendations urge us to recognize that Indigenous law is law, to commit to the multi-juridical potential of Canada's legal system, and to consider how to step into our responsibility to promote and work for deeper systemic change by advancing and implementing Indigenous law.

As the chief editor of the Conference of Western Attorneys General's American Indian Law Deskbook, I wanted to learn about the challenges the Métis faced in using the legal system in Canada to gain recognition and the differences between how the United States and Canadian governments treat indigenous peoples.

Her focus is on finding ways to make space within the Canadian legal system for the recognition of Indigenous laws, including in the areas of child welfare and child and family wellness.

However, the imposition of western colonial law (s), legal systems and policies upon Indigenous Peoples and Nations has had significant impact upon our ability to -LSB-...]

However, the imposition of western colonial law (s), legal systems and policies upon Indigenous Peoples and Nations has had significant impact upon our ability to govern, maintain peace and social order within Indigenous societies.

Some reflected that law is an assertion of sovereignty and questioned the process of using the label «foreign'to assert law through a system which has attempted to de-legitimize Indigenous sovereignty.

There was much discussion about what a decolonized courtroom would look like and whether an adversarial system could adequately define the scope of Indigenous law.

The recognition of native title by the High Court in 1992 was a recognition that law did govern Aboriginal society when sovereignty was acquired by the British and that Indigenous law was a subtle and elaborate system which provided a reasonably stable order of society.

These two systems are based on quite different premises and values, but the two have to find a way to interact as they coexist over the same land and in the case of land and native title rights, Indigenous laws have legal effect in the European system.

Translating Indigenous law so as to render it comprehensible within the common law will always involve to some degree an imposition of concepts and assumptions of the common law onto the understanding of the Indigenous law system.

The bundle of rights approach, like terra nullius, denies recognition and protection to an Indigenous system of rights on the basis they are unique and therefore not analogous to «part of the tenure system of the common law».

Changes to the native title system designed to give preference to non-Indigenous economic interests [36] are a breach of the human rights of Indigenous people and contrary to international and Australian racial discrimination law.

Implicit in their Honours reasoning is that because there is no equivalent of Indigenous relationships to land within the common law system of tenure, the recognition of these unique relationships within the common law can not resemble or bear any equivalence to the common law.

This basis for land rights legislation recognises that Indigenous societies in Australia are governed by their own systems of law, including customary land tenure systems, and strives to create space for these within the Australian legal system.

Identifying the group that, under traditional law, have responsibilities and entitlements to a particular area of land is very important, not only within the legal framework of the native title system, but also within the framework of Indigenous relationships and values.

If likening native title to a proprietal interest within a tenurial system provides a vehicle for the enjoyment of the unique Indigenous laws and customs within the protection of the common law then such a translation is justifiable as providing substantive equality to Indigenous people.

(76) What is argued in this section is that, even though terra nullius has been discarded as an international law doctrine, the recognition of native title does not require that the nexus between international law and the common law treatment of Indigenous people within the legal system of a sovereign state be discarded.

The Act established a system where Indigenous people can gain recognition by Australian law of rights and interests they have in land and waters according to Indigenous traditional laws and customs.

Where native title, if interpreted consistently with its origins in traditional law and custom, may have been the basis of economic development for the Indigenous owners of the Croker Island region, it is now rendered unproductive by its construction in the legal system.

Native title law involves the translation of complex Indigenous social relations, spiritual attachment to land and customary norms into legal rights which make sense to the Australian legal system.

However, this paradox of Indigenous representation reflects an inherent problem in the interface of two quite distinct systems — the European system of laws, governance and administration [222] and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander systems of laws and customs.

Before native title was recognised in Mabo (No. 2), 43 it was thought that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples» interests in land under their own laws and customs could not be given effect in Australian law.44 Until the Mabo decision, land rights legislation provided the only means of recognising Indigenous rights in land within the Australian legal system.

As a result of this «inherent» limitation in the common law, that in the context of native title it only recognises»em pirical facts and behavioural data», there is no recognition of a spiritual level within Indigenous culture which transforms physical activities or presence on the land into a system of laws.

Unequivocally, discriminatory laws in Australia must be removed from current statutes and decolonising law needs to be understood as legislatively incorporating: listening and responding to Indigenous voices and knowledge; implementing culturally safe systems; and allowing for the retention of community control justice programs.

In Chapters 2 and 3 of this report I outline how the main issue before the court in these cases is whether native title is conceived as a bundle of individuated rights which entitle native title holders to carry out specified activities on their land or whether it is based on a more fundamental relationship between Indigenous people and their ancestral land originating from the traditional system of law and custom.

We are Australia's Indigenous people, the first people of this land, and we continue to have — as we have always had — our own system of law, culture, land tenure, authority and leadership.

The promise of native title was that terra nullius would be replaced, not by another value judgment by the non-Indigenous legal system about what Aboriginal society was thought to be, but rather by the laws acknowledged and the customs observed by the Indigenous people reclaiming their land.

In fastening the recognition of native title to a pre-sovereign system of Indigenous laws, every claimant group must satisfy a court that the contemporary expression of their culture, their religion and their economy does not emanate from Western laws created after the British acquired sovereignty, but only from Indigenous laws created prior to the acquisition of sovereignty.

(110) It denies the generality and systematisation of rights which characterise all legal systems including traditional Indigenous laws.

[1] While the recommendations of that inquiry enjoy wide support from Indigenous organisations, there remains only limited recognition provided to Indigenous customary law through the criminal justice system.

The extent to which the common law recognises the system of laws on which Indigenous peoples» relationship to their land is built, will be determined by the High Court this year in the Miriuwung Gagerrong and Croker Island appeals.

Constructing native title as atomised and particularised practices denies their origin in a system of laws and customs which underlie Indigenous culture and society.

Overall, the Native Title Report 2004 seeks to develop a framework that recognises the distinctiveness of Indigenous identity as it is shaped by an adherence to traditional laws and customs, while at the same time seeking to maximise the contribution that the native title system can make to the economic and social development of traditional owner groups and the communities they live in.

The promise of native title was that the traditional systems underlying Indigenous society could be recognized by the common law.

Obviously, within the field of native title, the laws and customs through which entitlement to land is transmitted, represents a point of divergence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous systems and practices.

The construction of native title as a bundle of rights and interests, confirmed in the Miriuwung Gajerrong decision, reflects the failure of the common law and the Native Title Act to recognise Indigenous people as a people with a system of laws based on a profound relationship to land.

The relationship between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous legal systems was conceived in the Fejo decision [66] as «an intersection of traditional laws and customs with the common law».

However the real difficulty that makes the task of proving s223 (1)(a) of the NTA almost impossible is the combination of requiring proof of a vital and ongoing relationship between the Indigenous law and Indigenous society while at the same time denying the law making function of the Indigenous legal system.

The construction of native title as a bundle of rights and interests, confirmed in the Miriuwung Gajerrong decision, also reflects the failure of the common law and the NTA to recognise Indigenous people as a people with a system of laws based on a profound relationship to land.

In the Yorta Yorta decision, the High Court considered the distinction made in the NTA between the law - making system of Indigenous people and the rights and interests that emanate from this system.

Thus the characteristics of Indigenous sovereignty, the political, social and economic systems that unite and distinguish Indigenous people as a people were erased from the developing law of native title.

Thus recognition of native title rights and interests is restricted either to those created by the new normative system or to those created by the Indigenous normative system of laws and customs before sovereignty.

Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples» laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.