Sentences with phrase «nullius no»

The Torres Strait is home to the group of Islanders from Mer who first won recognition of native title, with Eddie (Koiki) Mabo triggering the land rights case which recognised Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders» native title to the land and affirmed that Australia was not terra nullius (belonging to no one) when the British arrived.

The Mabo [8] decision and the subsequent Native Title Act corrected the untruth of terra nullius.

affirming our place as the first peoples of Australia and recognising the untruth of terra nullius in our founding document

This was followed in 1992 by the High Court's decision in Mabo, which rejected the idea that Australia was terra nullius («land belonging to no one») at the time of European settlement.

The legal fiction that the «Crown» owns «vacant» land, or terra nullius, was officially discredited ten years ago.

Unlike Indigenous societies in other nations, such as Canada and New Zealand, the presumption of terra nullius by the colonizer meant that the sources and pretexts of Indigenous law and custom were not sought, which compounds the difficulty of defining the authority of customary law in the contemporary context.

The doctrine of terra nullius for instance denied indigenous land rights while indigenous peoples suffered injustices under many practices that past generations were involved.

To allow Indigenous sea rights to be relegated to the same legal status as recreational fishermen would be to hold to an outdated and defective doctrine of mare nullius, wholly inconsistent with contemporary international rules and principles.

They fought hard for our land rights; to overturn the doctrine of terra nullius; and to have our traditional laws and customs formally acknowledged by a legal system that is not designed to provide for the rights and interests of the original owners of this land.

[38] In fact it has been argued that in failing to acknowledge the prior presence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the current Constitution works to perpetuate the myth of terra nullius (no man's land).

When the British arrived on our lands, rather than respect our rights, laws and customs, the story of terra nullius was fabricated: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples simply did not exist as fellow humans in the eyes of our colonisers.

When Aboriginal people showed up — which they inevitably did — they had to be subjugated, incarcerated or eradicated: to keep the myth of terra nullius alive.

Photo / painting above: Eddie Koiki Mabo (c. 29 June 1936 — 23 January 1992) from the Torres Strait Islands known for his role in campaigning for Indigenous land rights and for his role in a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia which overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius («land belonging to nobody») which characterised Australian law with regard to land and title

Successive Australian governments, by failing to nullify the racially discriminatory operation of terra nullius, have been in breach of their international obligations since becoming a signatory to ICERD in 1975.

The non-recognition of native title prior to 1992 depended upon the existence of the profoundly racist doctrine of terra nullius.

Prior to these decisions the processes of recognition and extinguishment represented a troubling disjuncture in the law of native title with recognition understood as overturning terra nullius by giving it legal status and so protecting Indigenous rights to land.

Ignoring those rights and interests, the Crown's sovereignty over a territory which had been acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius was equated with Crown ownership of the lands therein, because, as Stephen C.J. said, there was «no other proprietor of such lands».

The establishment of the Council was followed in 1992 by the High Court's decision in Mabo [6], which rejected the assertion that Australia was terra nullius (or land belonging to no - one), and found that the common law of Australia recognises rights of Indigenous people to land [7] flowing from their continued occupation and usage.

The Mabo decision is usually associated with overturning terra nullius as the basis of the acquisition of British sovereignty which in turn allowed the courts to recognise native title.

Although the Mabo decision (50) was influenced by contemporary international human rights instruments and standards, especially in respect of the norm of non-discrimination, (51) and by the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice in respect of the doctrine of terra nullius, (52) it is the interweaving of international law and United States law (especially the Marshall US Supreme Court decisions in respect of Indigenous rights) that is more deeply embedded in the Mabo decision.

While reinforcing the reasoning of the High Court, the UN reports add a further basis on which to discard terra nullius, namely, that terra nullius removed Indigenous people from the sphere of international law and into the sphere of the domestic law of the colonial power.

Indeed native title as a bundle of rights reinforces terra nullius's depiction of Indigenous people as being «without laws, without a sovereign and primitive in their social organisation».

The rejection of terra nullius was a rejection of the assertion that Indigenous people were not socially or politically constituted.

In Mabo the High Court rejected terra nullius as a basis for colonisation in Australia on three grounds;

[terra nullius] completely discounted the cultural value of the Aborigines» traditional and complex land distribution system.

What has replaced terra nullius as a legitimate explanation for the establishment of what is now the Australian nation?

The NSW Government's actions in enacting the Aboriginal land rights legislation long before the legal fiction of terra nullius was overturned by the High Court in 1992, was a remarkable and significant step at the time.

Australia's land administration can no longer operate on a «terra nullius» basis; a Joint Parliamentary Committee recently heard of the change of mind - set this requires for land use and planning:

Having rejected the distinction between inhabited territories that were considered terra nullius and those that were not considered terra nullius based on the customs of their Indigenous inhabitants, the common law was liberated to recognise and give protection to the relationship that Indigenous people continue to have with their land through the concept of native title.

Finally the Court was influenced by the decision of the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of Western Sahara (1975) ICJR that rejected terra nullius as the basis for Spanish sovereignty in Western Sahara.

Two United Nations» reports that support and expand upon the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting terra nullius have recently been tabled at the United Nations.

(88) Recent reports from the UN have provided further analysis which leads to a rejection of terra nullius as a legitimate basis for the acquisition of territory.

The second report that critically appraises terra nullius as a discriminatory instrument of colonization is the final working paper prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Erica - Irene A. Daes entitled, Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land.

Martinez» rejection of terra nullius stems from an overriding objection to the ambitions of colonialism generally.

By recalling times when exploration was conducted through a «terra nullius» management system, these comparisons are encouraging an approach as dismissive of Indigenous rights as it was then.

While sovereignty is uncontestable at law, as a result of the overturning of terra nullius, it is also without justification or legitimacy.

Terra nullius is out of step with modern international law, particularly in relation to the human rights of equality and self - determination.

What impact does the rejection of terra nullius have on the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people?

The review of terra nullius was not directed towards the fact of sovereignty, but only to the means by which sovereignty was acquired.

This link between the recognition of native title and the overturning of terra nullius is fundamental to the way in which native title has developed through the common law.

This year will be the tenth anniversary of the Mabo decision which rejected terra nullius and recognised the continued existence of native title.

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.

Yet the promise that, with the overturning of terra nullius the common law might form the basis of a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people has not been fulfilled.

The overturning of terra nullius and the consequent absence of any legitimate basis for the establishment of non-Indigenous sovereignty over previously occupied territory can be addressed by ensuring that the establishment of a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is based on human rights principles.

There are many reasons why the notion of terra nullius no longer holds legitimacy as a basis for the establishment of a colony already inhabited by Indigenous people.

Australia's settlers practices and believed in the purest form of terra nullius with the consequence that their heirs, now moved by a less racist and more liberal outlook, have the furthest to go, the widest chasm to bridge, in finding a consensual way of sharing citizenship and country with the first peoples of their land.

The International Court of Justice has also discarded terra nullius as a legitimate means of acquiring sovereignty.

In overturning terra nullius the High Court has not overturned the effect terra nullius had of denying Indigenous people their status as subjects of international law.

In rejecting terra nullius the High Court rejected the discriminatory denigration of Indigenous people as having no social organization, laws or recognised sovereign.

Even though terra nullius is an international law concept which had to be overturned in order to recognize Indigenous people's relationship to land, native title is a common law concept belonging squarely within municipal or domestic law.