“增量和累积”:格里菲斯和1993年《土著所有权法》(Cth)在处理文化损失补偿方面的局限性

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109
Michael Raine
{"title":"“增量和累积”:格里菲斯和1993年《土著所有权法》(Cth)在处理文化损失补偿方面的局限性","authors":"Michael Raine","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Coming more than 25 years after Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, the landmark decision in Northern Territory v Griffiths (‘Griffiths’) (2019) 269 CLR 1 is the first judicially determined award of compensation for both economic and non-economic, or cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Although some attention has been given to the economic loss component of the decision, very little has been written about the most important aspect of the decision, cultural loss, and what this aspect means for First Nations Australians in reality. This article examines the legal and practical implications of the decision in Griffiths as it pertains to cultural loss and in the broader context of colonialism, native title law and First Nations’ law. I argue that these implications demonstrate how compensation for cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) perpetuates colonialism and will fail many First Nations Australians in properly compensating for the loss of connection to country.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Incremental and cumulative’: Griffiths and the limitations of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in dealing with compensation for cultural loss\",\"authors\":\"Michael Raine\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Coming more than 25 years after Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, the landmark decision in Northern Territory v Griffiths (‘Griffiths’) (2019) 269 CLR 1 is the first judicially determined award of compensation for both economic and non-economic, or cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Although some attention has been given to the economic loss component of the decision, very little has been written about the most important aspect of the decision, cultural loss, and what this aspect means for First Nations Australians in reality. This article examines the legal and practical implications of the decision in Griffiths as it pertains to cultural loss and in the broader context of colonialism, native title law and First Nations’ law. I argue that these implications demonstrate how compensation for cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) perpetuates colonialism and will fail many First Nations Australians in properly compensating for the loss of connection to country.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109\",\"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":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109","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

在Mabo诉昆士兰案[No . 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1之后的25年多,北领地诉格里菲斯案(“格里菲斯”)(2019)269 CLR 1具有里程碑意义的判决是根据1993年《土著权利法》(Cth)第一次司法确定的经济和非经济或文化损失赔偿。尽管人们对这一决定的经济损失部分给予了一些关注,但关于这一决定最重要的方面,即文化损失,以及这一方面对澳大利亚原住民的现实意义的报道却很少。本文考察了格里菲斯一案的法律和实践意义,因为它涉及文化损失,并在殖民主义、土著所有权法和第一民族法的更广泛背景下。我认为,这些影响表明,根据《1993年土著权利法案》(Cth)对文化损失的补偿是如何使殖民主义永久化的,并将使许多土著澳大利亚人无法适当补偿与国家联系的损失。
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
‘Incremental and cumulative’: Griffiths and the limitations of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in dealing with compensation for cultural loss
ABSTRACT Coming more than 25 years after Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, the landmark decision in Northern Territory v Griffiths (‘Griffiths’) (2019) 269 CLR 1 is the first judicially determined award of compensation for both economic and non-economic, or cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Although some attention has been given to the economic loss component of the decision, very little has been written about the most important aspect of the decision, cultural loss, and what this aspect means for First Nations Australians in reality. This article examines the legal and practical implications of the decision in Griffiths as it pertains to cultural loss and in the broader context of colonialism, native title law and First Nations’ law. I argue that these implications demonstrate how compensation for cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) perpetuates colonialism and will fail many First Nations Australians in properly compensating for the loss of connection to country.
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
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
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