As a consequence, no prime city land could be claimed, nor could any land stolen from Aborigines be claimed. This just left the desert where Aborigines had been living continuously since because no one else had ever wanted the land. From this quotation, one can clearly see that the judgment was not as beneficial as one was led to believe, at the time.
In fact, if anything, the judgment rendered indigenous peoples incapable of selling land or owning it individually, as no such right was recognized. Due to these reasons, some argue still that the court effectively prevented Aborigines to own anything of value and thereby elevate their race.
It is also important to mention here that the Mabo case, though it had ramifications upon all natives in all areas of society, was solely about native title on the Murray Islands.
Legal precedent had laid down customary title, but was extinguished by the acquisition of the island by the Crown. Against this precedent, in this case, the High Court found that common law would prevail, i. However, after rendering judgment in this case, the Justices stated that the verdict would not apply, to the surprise of many, to those natives living on the mainland, enraging those who had believed in a breakthrough and disappointing hundreds of thousands who had hoped for justice.
Ulls Secher, a professor at Queensland University, also examines the decision in this case and states that there are other illustrious individuals who not only believe that the decision has not benefitted the indigenous community, but there are some who believe that the decision itself was flawed.
From the point-of-view of historian Michael Connor, she states: "[…] Connor's contention is threefold: first, that the doctrine of terra nullius was 'invented' by historian, Henry Reynolds, in his work The Law of the Land, secondly, that the doctrine of terra nullius is, therefore, a modem fiction rather than the legal foundation of Australia's sovereignty; and, thirdly, because the Mabo decision was based upon Reynolds' flawed invention of the doctrine of terra nullius, the Mabo decision was itself flawed.
Thus, Connor purports to discredit the doctrine of terra nullius and with it - the decision in Mabo. To further add credit to both this paper, and its argument state in the first paragraph, three additional academic paper will be analyzed below. The first paper undertakes the analysis of co-existence between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. From this perspective the author here aims to understand some of the most difficult interactions between the two populations, namely at mining sites, infrastructure development sites, and at negotiations, especially those involving cross cultural and governmental issues.
Order now The Mabo decision in the High Court was the culmination of a legal battle started ten years earlier by a group of plaintiffs from the tiny Torres Strait island of Mer to establish their traditional ownership of the Murray Islands. The Mabo decision was named after Eddie Mabo, the man who challenged the Australian legal system and fought for recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of their land.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples occupied Australia for 40, to 60, years before the British arrived in They spoke their own languages and had their own laws and customs.
When the British arrived, they declared that Australia was terra nullius empty land — or land that belongs to nobody. At the age of seven, Eddie was training as a classical pianist, although his love for Rock and Roll was developing.
He started working a paper route and used the money to buy a drum set. His brother Alex, also musically inclined, bought a guitar. After months of practicing, Alex and Eddie switched instruments. Alex would spend hours on Eddie's drums and loved to play them. The story film Mabo, in leading up to its supportive and motivated revolution in Australia's history, is assist by Eddie's family determination to win Eddie Mabo's land rights case and thus restore justice to indigenous people.
Crazy Eddie was convicted of white collar crime through fraud triangle. Crazy Eddie involved in fraud through incentives, opportunity and rationalization.
The Mer Islanders decided they would be the ones to challenge the legal principle of terra nullius in the High Court and that Eddie Mabo would be the one to lead that action. Mabo Day occurs annually on June 3rd to commemorate Eddie Mabo and his incredible achievement to campaign for indigenous land rights led to a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius on June 3rd How to cite this page Choose cite format:. On 3 June , the High Court of Australia decided that terra nullius should not have been applied to Australia. This judgment ruled that the land title of Indigenous Peoples i. The effectiveness of the law and the law reform in protecting the rights of individual and society at large is demonstrated throughout this essay.
He started working a paper route and used the money to buy a drum set.
Order now The Mabo decision in the High Court was the culmination of a legal battle started ten years earlier by a group of plaintiffs from the tiny Torres Strait island of Mer to establish their traditional ownership of the Murray Islands. Another aspect as to how the judgment rendered has not benefitted the Aboriginal population was in the complexities thereof.
Yet this should not have been a worry for two reasons. Some argue that, for instance, the High Court was dubious and misled people in the definitions and legal significance of terra nullis. His brother Alex, also musically inclined, bought a guitar. Though this latter claim is said to be biased in favor of natives, it is in no way false, and only since have native peoples been able to establish some sort of title for land. The article also examines co-occupation of space by the two populations, and relates this to both a growth in understanding but also an increase in friction between the two seemingly disparate societies. Furthermore, it was clear, as it had been for ages, that the doctrine of terra nullis was flawed, as Australia had clearly been occupied for centuries when colonized.
Others yet argue that the court created newly racist laws.
As presented above, the case was vital to bringing the country in the modern era, especially since aboriginal ownership of land had always been recognized by Great Britain. Another aspect as to how the judgment rendered has not benefitted the Aboriginal population was in the complexities thereof.
III-V Facts.. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples occupied Australia for 40, to 60, years before the British arrived in