革新正统的澳大利亚领土主权理论

Daniel Lavery
{"title":"革新正统的澳大利亚领土主权理论","authors":"Daniel Lavery","doi":"10.53637/wdei5411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mabo v Queensland [No 2] opened for re-examination the fundamental principles underpinning the colonial foundations of Australia, stating the native title of Indigenous peoples could survive the assertions of territorial sovereignty by Great Britain. Finding their territories were ‘sovereign’-less because they were ‘backward peoples’, an original, plenipotent sovereignty swept across the 3,000,000 square kilometres of ‘New South Wales’ on 7 February 1788, and across the balance of continental Australia in 1824 and 1829. This orthodox theory of sovereignty was unchallenged until Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria in 2002, where the High Court stressed the traditional laws and customs sourcing these native titles must be housed in pre-existing yet vital normative systems which likewise survived the assertions of sovereignty. Each native title determination thus acknowledges an Indigenous society whose laws and customs are sourced outside of the formal constitutional framework. The orthodox theory needs renovating in order to achieve a legally congruent and historically coherent framework.","PeriodicalId":45951,"journal":{"name":"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Renovating the Orthodox Theory of Australian Territorial Sovereignty\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Lavery\",\"doi\":\"10.53637/wdei5411\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mabo v Queensland [No 2] opened for re-examination the fundamental principles underpinning the colonial foundations of Australia, stating the native title of Indigenous peoples could survive the assertions of territorial sovereignty by Great Britain. Finding their territories were ‘sovereign’-less because they were ‘backward peoples’, an original, plenipotent sovereignty swept across the 3,000,000 square kilometres of ‘New South Wales’ on 7 February 1788, and across the balance of continental Australia in 1824 and 1829. This orthodox theory of sovereignty was unchallenged until Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria in 2002, where the High Court stressed the traditional laws and customs sourcing these native titles must be housed in pre-existing yet vital normative systems which likewise survived the assertions of sovereignty. Each native title determination thus acknowledges an Indigenous society whose laws and customs are sourced outside of the formal constitutional framework. The orthodox theory needs renovating in order to achieve a legally congruent and historically coherent framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53637/wdei5411\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES LAW JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53637/wdei5411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Mabo诉Queensland案[第2号]重新审视了支撑澳大利亚殖民基础的基本原则,指出土著人民的原住民头衔可以在英国的领土主权主张下幸存下来。1788年2月7日,一个原始的全权主权席卷了3000000平方公里的“新南威尔士”,并于1824年和1829年席卷了澳大利亚大陆。这种正统的主权理论一直没有受到质疑,直到2002年约塔-约塔原住民社区成员诉维多利亚案,高等法院强调,这些原住民头衔的传统法律和习俗必须包含在预先存在但至关重要的规范体系中,这些体系同样在主权主张中幸存下来。因此,每一项土著权利的确定都承认一个土著社会,其法律和习俗来源于正式宪法框架之外。正统理论需要更新,以实现法律上一致和历史上一致的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Renovating the Orthodox Theory of Australian Territorial Sovereignty
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] opened for re-examination the fundamental principles underpinning the colonial foundations of Australia, stating the native title of Indigenous peoples could survive the assertions of territorial sovereignty by Great Britain. Finding their territories were ‘sovereign’-less because they were ‘backward peoples’, an original, plenipotent sovereignty swept across the 3,000,000 square kilometres of ‘New South Wales’ on 7 February 1788, and across the balance of continental Australia in 1824 and 1829. This orthodox theory of sovereignty was unchallenged until Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria in 2002, where the High Court stressed the traditional laws and customs sourcing these native titles must be housed in pre-existing yet vital normative systems which likewise survived the assertions of sovereignty. Each native title determination thus acknowledges an Indigenous society whose laws and customs are sourced outside of the formal constitutional framework. The orthodox theory needs renovating in order to achieve a legally congruent and historically coherent framework.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Intoxication Evidence in Rape Trials in the Country Court of Victoria: A Qualitative Study To Catch a Killer Cousin: Investigative Genetic Genealogy as a Critical Extension of Familial Searching in Serious Crime Convictions in Australia Indigenous Experience Reports: Addressing Silence and Deficit Discourse in Sentencing Reversing the ‘Quasi-tribunal’ Role of Human Research Ethics Committees: A Waiver of Consent Case Study The Spectacle of Respectable Equality: Queer Discrimination in Australian Law Post Marriage Equality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1