william cooper v stuart

WebSouth Wales: Cooper v Stuart (1889), 14 App Cas 286, at p 291. 0000001501 00000 n His Excellency Sir Thomas Brisbane, then Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales and its Dependencies, on the 27th May 1823, made a grant to one William [51] And it is another question again what the consequences would be of a reassessment now of the status of the acquisition of Australia, and of its classification as uninhabited and uncultivated. Indigenous Justice Mechanisms in some Overseas Countries: Models and Comparisons, 31. 6 Cited in Mabo no 2 at 34-35. 0000036242 00000 n As Hannah Robert has shown, the story is more complex and the central problem is how occupancy as a concept played out. 0000001065 00000 n This proclamation articulated the legal principle of Terra Nullius, which was enshrined into Australian law by the Privy Council in the 1889 case of Cooper v Stuart. cXDNc8>-D 0APP9d%Hl$#=JJ*%%Z$a (b` Whatever may have been the injustice of this encroachment, there is no reason to suppose that either justice or humanity would now be consulted by receding from it.[34]. The Australian High Court's Use of the Western Sahara Case in Mabo - Volume 45 Issue 4 }";K{ls}EZvM<5B endstream If we do not, the Australian legal system will continue to rest on a dubious basis of either fraud or a mistake of fact. Browns intrusion was a direct attack on the Crowns albeit fictional feudal right as ultimate holder of the title to the waste lands. Australian Court Case, Barwick, Chief Justice, Cooper V Stuart, Deane, Sir William, High Court of Australia, Murphy, Justice, Murphy, Justice, native title, Papua C. W. Beckham en 1915. Aboriginal Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Current Australian Legislation, Legislation on Hunting and Gathering Rights, Access to Land for Hunting and Gathering: The Present Position, Miscellaneous Restrictions Under Australian Legislation, Australian Legislation on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering: An Overview, 36. Although the Privy Council referred in Cooper v Stuart to peaceful annexation, the aborigines did not give up their lands peacefully: they were killed %%EOF <]>> The commentary ends by discussing a Makarrata Commission as proposed by the Uluru Statement from the Heart. 13. As Connor has pointed out, it was the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara in 1975 which led directly to the idea of terra nullius taking hold of the historical and legal imagination in Australia. 0000036526 00000 n Email info@alrc.gov.au, PO Box 12953 The third is the consequences of acknowledging now, as a result of an increased understanding of those laws and traditions, that the processes of territorial acquisition and application of law involved a classification of Australia which reflected the insensitivity shown (and perhaps aggravated the injustices caused) to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. WebMlad Sheldon (angl. Aboriginal Customary Laws and Anglo-Australian Law After 1788, Protest and Reform in the 1920s and 1930s, 6. /Filter /LZWDecode [44]cf G Blainey, Triumph of the Nomads, rev edn, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1983, 67-83, and see further para 883-7. See also para 23, 24. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. The Western Saharan tribes, it held, were socially and politically organised under chiefs competent to represent them (para 80, & cf para 149). 64. Community Wardens and other Forms of Self-Policing, Policing Aboriginal Communities: Conclusions, 33. [54] But such a presumption is hardly needed. 0000021105 00000 n Dispute Settlement in Aboriginal Communities, 29. The Tribunal cannot conduct negotiations. Aboriginal Customary laws and the Criminal Justice System, The Interaction of Aboriginal Customary Laws and the Criminal Law, Legal Pluralism in the Criminal Law: Overseas Experience, 18. /F0 6 0 R /Filter /LZWDecode >> In passing their Lordships referred to NSW as a Colony which consisted of a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. In this sense the comment was more akin to obiter than a ratio. 0000031992 00000 n It is possible that the point may be dealt with by the High Court in Mabo v Queensland and Commonwealth, although the claim there does not depend on the conquered colony argument. [25]See para 66 for statements of this view. There is now considerable evidence of Aboriginal techniques of land management and conservation, including the deliberate use of fire,[44] but Aborigines were not in the European sense a pastoral or farming people, if that was what was required. Importantly, Cooper v Stuart, through the doctrine of stare decisis, prevented Justice Blackburn in Milirrpum v Nabalco ((1971) 17 FLR 141 at 242) from recognising indigenous rights to land in the Northern Territory. However it is desirable to deal with the issue at the general level at which it is raised. 0000006169 00000 n It was not a question justiciable in a court deriving its power from the Commonwealth Constitution, whose authority derives from that very sovereignty.2. After the Uluru Statement of the Heart, the Commonwealths recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty is also now under the spotlight. enquiries. 0000003844 00000 n Lawyer Monthly is a news website and monthly legal publication with content that is entirely defined by the significant legal news from around the world. 0000064319 00000 n biXDN>[ 57h$%42TPd0vX:{ ~4an``)Tpv%qX;V0]`pVVP1(X"y5 X} 7b Discussion of Australias status on colonisation has not been limited to judicial pronouncements. Its authority to deal with claims was backdated from 1975 to 1840 in 1985 (Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985 (NZ) s 3). cHzHRfj0"'sa)&pVZ+,d#1jTWRHa@E We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging. See also footnote 2 in Fitzmaurice, The Genealogy, 10 (1889) 14 App Cas 286 at 291; (1886) NSWR 1; Evening News, Sydney, Monday 17 August 1885 at 5; Darling Downs Gazette Saturday 6 April 1889; The Daily Northern Argus Rockhampton Monday 28 January 1889, 14 Exactly what the defendants counsel in Attorney-General v Brown had argued, see footnote 9. @x @L#&JfA Other Methods of Proof: Assessors, Court Experts, Pre-Sentence Reports, Justice Mechanisms in Aboriginal Communities: Needs, Problems and Responses, 28. Legal and Moral Issues. Professor Bruce Kercher, An Unruly Child, A History of Law in Australia, 1994 But nevertheless Cooper v Stuart mandates the statement of proposition 6 because in 1971 Justice Blackburn still considered himself bound by it: 291) was heavily influenced by this reversal of argument previously used to protect indigenous rights in the face of colonial acquisition of territory. Despite It follows that Aborigines must be considered within the allegiance of the Queen and as entitled to her protection. Difficulties of Application: The Status and Scope of the Interrogation Rules, 23. << Aboriginal Customary Laws: Aboriginal Child Custody, Fostering and Adoption, Questions of Principle and Implementation, Federal, State and Territory Forums for Issues of Aboriginal Child Custody, Recognition of Customary or De Facto Adoption, Social Security and the Care and Custody of Aboriginal Children, 17. It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards. This law effectively stopped anyone 0000001189 00000 n ,)bL $Oy %yLAFX%*0S~mPwmdRi_~?V-y*='L8Q M@cB2Z9#69%B?&seJs9:C$E3 In Attorney-General v Brown, a landowner tried to take coal from his granted land where a reservation clause in the grant provided for Crown ownership of the coal. 0000061385 00000 n He is affiliated with many hospitals including San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center, Rio Grande Hospital. See para 68. See all. The Governor of the colony, before 1824, had made a land grant that The Crowns title, through settlement (or to put it another way, through the occupancy of British settlers) gave them the status of first taker in the eyes of the Supreme Court of NSW: in a newly-discovered country, settled by British subjects, the occupancy of the Crown is no fiction Here is a property, depending for its support on no feudal notions or principle., But this case must not be wrenched from its historical context. /Font << Milirrpum v Nabalco at 202, 7 Examples include S. Breanna et al, Treaty; M Mansell Treaty and Statehood: Aboriginal Self-Determination, Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press 2016. The contrary view was expressed, for example, by Justice H Zelling, Submission 369 (26 January 1983) 1, on the grounds that the settled colony rule was established practice for other colonies with indigenous inhabitants, and that it was in any event established, for South Australia at least, by statute (4 & 5 Wm IV c95), not merely by judicial decision. endobj endobj The case for the forms of recognition of Aboriginal customary laws and traditions recommended in this Report is, in the Commissions view, a clear one. 0000002631 00000 n The Growth of Japanese Dispute Resolution, The Threshold for Perversity When Challenging the Assignment of Claims, Crime in Art Law: Digitalisation, Trafficking and Destruction, div#side-jobs-widget br {display: none;}div#side-jobs-widget strong{display:Block;}.slj-job.slj-job-sidebar{margin:0 0 25px;}, OSCAR HEALTH 72 HOUR DEADLINE ALERT: Former Louisiana Attorney General, UPSTART HOLDINGS 96 HOUR DEADLINE ALERT: Former Louisiana Attorney, OUTSET MEDICAL ALERT: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation, Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 2. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that if it is recognised that sovereignty did inhere in the Aboriginal people in a way not comprehended by those who applied the terra nullius doctrine at the time of occupation and settlement, then certain consequences flow which are proper to be dealt with in a compact between the descendants of those Aboriginal peoples and other Australians.[52]. See eg RL Sharp, People without Politics, in VF Ray (ed) Systems of Political Control and Bureaucracy in Human Societies, University Of Washington Press, Seattle, 1958; P Sutton People with Politics: Management of Land and Personnel on Australias Cape York Peninsula, in NW Williams and ES Hunn (eds) Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, Westview Press, Colarado, 1982, 155. 0000001908 00000 n Cooks secret instructions had provided that he should acquire territory with the consent of the Natives. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. In practice, difficulties such as those encountered in Milirrpums case would be encountered, given the enormous changes in Aboriginal societies and traditions since settlement. [39]4 & 5 Win IV c95 s 1; and see Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 48. >> A Legal Justification for a Treaty between Australia and Its Indigenous Peoples, Enter the World of Tech Start-Ups and Investments in Turkey, French and International Property and Tax Matters in 2023. It has been argued that such a reassessment would open the way to wider recognition of customary laws by the common law. The Crown in London gave up the fight to stop leases being given to those who had simply spread out beyond the limits of location, and passed the 1846 waste lands legislation providing for leases of Crown land. /Length 18 0 R [25] It is clear that these rules were the vehicle by which recognition of Aboriginal laws was denied. 0000038209 00000 n 0000060797 00000 n 11 0 obj Section 24, in effect, reaffirmed that New South Wales was a settled colony, but provided a later date of reception for reasons of convenience. Spanning the centuries from Hammurabi to Hume, and collecting material on topics from art and economics to law and political theory, the OLL provides you with a rich variety of texts to explore and consider. <<858E00CE4FFAF342A410969D82250243>]/Prev 348379>> 0 /ProcSet 2 0 R 13 0 obj WebCooper who had the title to the land argued that the 1823 clause was invalid because it went against the law of perpetuities. However, the Committee concludes that, as a legal proposition, sovereignty is not now vested in the Aboriginal peoples except insofar as they share in the common sovereignty of all peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. The land was deemed terra nullius Mabo v Queensland (No. The last lingering doubts, if there were any, were firmly removed when the British authorities refused to give any form of legal recognition to John Barmans claim that he could acquire land rights by treating with Aboriginal tribes in the Port Phillip district.[37]. [50]Coe v Commonwealth (1978) 18 ALR 592 (Mason J);. [48]See I Hookey, Settlement and Sovereignty in P Hanks and B Keon-Cohen (eds) Aborigines and The Law, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1984, 16, 17. It would indeed be a poor birthright if the common law inherited by the settlers of New South Wales was only Additional Instructions for Lt James Cook, appointed to command His Majestys Bark Endeavour, 30 July 1768, in JM Bennett & AC Castles. >> Y:GEEYEBwCC-YGYD6[EYE,A2Z- [42], The assumption, which underlay the proclamation of British sovereignty over Eastern and later Western Australia and the subsequent gradual occupation of the continent, that Australia was legally uninhabited because it was desert and uncultivated[43] was, it has been argued, wrong as a matter of fact. Its interest to a wider Australia is obvious; its own Phone +61 7 3052 4224 Two of the four justices in Coe v Commonwealth[30] thought the point arguable, though two did not. Both in the Select Committee Report on New Zealand in 18442 and in the South Australian Letters Patent, the word actual qualified the indigenous right to occupation:3. Australia has always been regarded as belonging to the latter class [31]. WebThe Old Privy Council decision in Cooper V Stuart [1889] was based on the factual errors that Australia was peacefully settled and that Aborigines were never in possession of the land. The case, Cooper v Stuart , had nothing to do with the rights of Aboriginal people in New South Wales. See para 37, 203. Current student Jonathan applies his extensive projects, resources, native title and cultural heritage experience to mining, oil and gas transactions, renewable energy, infrastructure developments, joint venture arrangements, and asset and share sales and acquisitions across Australia and internationally. [31]id, 129, citing Cooper v Stuart, Aickin J agreed: id, 138. ON 3 APRIL 1889, the Privy Council delivered Cooper v Stuart [1889] UKPC 1 (03 April 1889). Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286. The decisive date was deliberately made the date of the passing of the Act, 25 July 1828, in order to gain the benefit of Peels criminal law reforms introduced during the 1820s. Thus British law was applied in the colony from the first. But they also empowered him to take possession of uninhabited country, by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions as first discoverers and possessors. endstream endobj 141 0 obj <> endobj 142 0 obj <> endobj 143 0 obj <> endobj 144 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>> endobj 145 0 obj <> endobj 146 0 obj <> endobj 147 0 obj <> endobj 148 0 obj <> endobj 149 0 obj <> endobj 150 0 obj <> endobj 151 0 obj <> endobj 152 0 obj <>stream /Length 13 0 R q\6 WebJ. It is not difficult to see how Henry Reynolds could assert that native title was recognised by the Crown in the 1840s, through the provision of reserves, the insertion of reservation clauses in pastoral leases to recognise practically the right of occupancy on runs, and provision in clause 20 of the Waste Lands Act 1842 (Imp.) The Privy Council eventually held that the reservation was valid, but they first had to decide whether the laws of England operated in the colony at the time of the grant. Aboriginal Traditional Marriage: Areas for Recognition, Functional Recognition of Traditional Marriage, Legitimacy of Children, Adoption and Related Issues, Questions of Maintenance and Property Distribution, Spousal Compellability in the Law of Evidence, 15. pZl) ')"RuH. So claims of a legal relationship to land by the States remain compromised. The second part of this essay will address the basis as it appears in the archive. /Contents 12 0 R Web2019] COOPER V. AARON AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 257 such a mix of the laudable and contestable. [54]But see para 109 for difficulties with compensation in this context. [33]id, 138. /F1 8 0 R XCIC3MRM!t,k*8j7#`4 c`# 7A 0@ Web8 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 176569, a facsimile of the 1st ed, 1979) vol 1, 1045; Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations The case took the form of a Crown information against the defendant landholder Brown for intruding into the coal seams and trespassing on the Crowns rights to the coal in the soil. startxref % 0000004467 00000 n Special Aboriginal Courts and Justice Schemes, Support Structures for the Aboriginal Courts, 30. Aboriginal Societies: The Experience of Contact, Changing Policies Towards Aboriginal People, Impacts of Settlement on Aboriginal People, 4. id, 138. In the light of subsequent anthropological research, the assumption that Eastern Australia in 1788 had neither settled inhabitants nor settled law cannot be sustained. It was applied in the Australian colonies and in New Zealand, regardless of the existence of treaties (be it Batman or Waitangi). He was Lord Advocate , the most senior Law But the Maori experience suggests that such recognition would have been grudging and temporary. endstream Cooper v Stuart (1899) Held that the land was unoccupied upon discovery and so it was settled. Only then can the Crown in each of its capacities in Australia establish a legal relationship between its claims to sovereignty and rights in the. Stay informed with all of the latest news from the ALRC. As one submission put it: I suggest that the Commission should take the opportunity to reject in the strongest terms possible the notion that has hitherto prevented any recognition of customary law among the Australian aboriginal people, namely the doctrine that upon colonisation Australia fell into the category of a settled colony, a land either without previous inhabitants or whose inhabitants lacked any social organisation worth recognising [T]his myopic view of aboriginal society (excusable as it might have been by the standards of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries) has been conclusively shown by anthropologists and historians to be quite wrong as a matter of fact Yet the Australian courts persist to the present day in maintaining the fiction of the uninhabited colony, on the ground that it is a question of law which was authoritatively settled by the Privy Council in Cooper v Stuart (a reading of which indicates that the Privy Council hardly addressed its mind to the question). On this view. Where the indigenous people were in actual occupation, however, was a question to which the facts on the ground did not readily admit an answer. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up by the government in 1975 by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Paul Coes statement of claim in Coe v the Commonwealth used the concept expressly, and it was taken up by historians such as Reynolds and others.7 Thus it is now necessary to put proposition 4: There is no reference to terra nullius being the basis for settlement in 19th century historical sources relating to the settlement of Australia. 0000002143 00000 n [50] The classification of Australia as a settled rather than a conquered colony may also have been an act of state; at least, it may now be a classification settled by legislative or judicial decision. 0000064207 00000 n 876 Yrz]PI\_E[jcCY& =B2Hc|07nz"g3)(gswdK\'v213 V4hj!B h%b8FoqO9s3= bHaA1'9"lJy]9X3| m!3@wR7/rWxVejodq UcS[9(Y(N*XM1T&=8$HqA[$y1]8vQ j:yS`rhD. This explanation also helped prefigure the circumstances in which the Australian state, including the Australian Constitution, developed without legitimate consideration for the rights of First Nations. stream Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act, 1987, Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory), 1976, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, AMEC (Assoc' of Mining & Exploration Co's), ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association, Department of Aboriginal & Islander Affairs (DAIA), FCAATSI Federal Council For Aboriginal Advancement, Ganalanja Corp v Queensland and Ors (1996), Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister for Indian Affairs (1979), Miriuwung Gajerrong Peoples v Western Australia (1998), Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida (1974), Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act , 1985, Southern Rhodesia, Amodu Tijani V Secretary, 1921, Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Office (1986), Teddy Biljabu and Ors v Western Australia (1995), The Administration of Papua v Daera Guba 1972-3, The Land Titles and Traditional Usages Act, Walley v State of Western Australia (1996), This is an NFSA Digital Learning resource. The Recognition of Traditional Marriages: General Approach, Existing Recognition of Traditional Marriages under Australian Law, Alternative Forms of Recognition of Aboriginal Traditional Marriages, Recognition of Traditional Marriages as De Facto Relationships, Enforcement of Traditional Marriage Rules, Traditional Marriage: Definition and Proof, 14. 4 0 obj << [46]Western Sahara Advisory Opinion ICJ Rep 1975, 12; J Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, 181. Of course, deciding where nomadic peoples actually occupied the land was a nonsense, but it grounded the colonial project in Australia and New Zealand. Parliament, and want to work more slowly towards a national treaty.9 Nevertheless, Victoria and South Australia have started consultation towards provincial treaties.10 Proposition 10 is the consequence: On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. See also GS Lester, Submission 468 (19 February 1985). 0000001952 00000 n The English, citing Locke, inverted it: those who mixed their labour with the soil and with things available in nature were entitled to a first claim to property rights in those things, a sort of first taker as first fashioner.4. Whatever the position in 1788 or in 1837, it is much too late to suggest that justice to Aboriginal people today can be achieved thro ugh attempts to[53] reconstruct or recreate the past. << It is hardly necessary to say that the question is not how the manner in which Australia became a British possession might appropriately be described. But the Maori experience suggests that such recognition would have been grudging and temporary. It asserts that treaty-making between the Commonwealth, the States and indigenous Australians has a legal justification. When the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines reported: see para 64. << Il est le 35e gouverneur du Kentucky (19001907) et un snateur pour l'tat au Snat des tats-Unis. 1 Votes and Proceedings of the NSW Legislative Council, no 13, 9 July 1840. See also Logan Jack (1921), and cf para 39. Despite being overturned by Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (Mabo [No 2]), the case remains important because of the Privy Councils justification for the application of English common law to the colony of New South Wales. A similar distinction was made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on the feasibility of an Aboriginal treaty or Makarrata: It may be that a better and more honest appreciation of the facts relating to Aboriginal occupation at the time of settlement, and of the Eurocentric view taken by the occupying powers, could lead to the conclusion that sovereignty inhered in the Aboriginal peoples at that time. 0000038638 00000 n /Length 10 0 R 67. The right of occupancy asserted by Gippss examination of legal commentaries looks like native title as we understand it from Mabo, and the title in the Discoverer looks like radical title. and its proclamation of We should be mature enough to make that concession. }AWG5{eNw RDJ2\d"h 9 0 obj >> 140 0 obj <> endobj /hWj|]e_+-7 0000005665 00000 n [26] The general principles for the introduction of English law into a settled as distinct from a conquered colony were laid down by Blackstone in 1765. It was the only journal which offered the reader coverage of comparative law as well as public and private international law. The South Australian Colonization Commissioners followed this up with instructions to the Protector of Aborigines, narrowing the legal meaning of Aboriginal rights in land to cover only lands used for cultivation, fixed residence or funereal purposes.4 Land not actually occupied by Aboriginal people was beneficially owned by the Crown. Request Permissions, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. /Parent 5 0 R It is possible that the point may be dealt with by the High Court in. To a considerable extent this reassessment or reevaluation of the processes of British acquisition of Australia is an aspect of the moral and political debate over past and present relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. 0000005271 00000 n 0000003030 00000 n Aboriginal Customary Laws and Sentencing, Aboriginal Customary Laws and Sentencing: Existing Law and Practice, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws in Sentencing, Aboriginal Customary Laws and the Notion of Punishment, Sentencing and Aboriginal Customary Laws: General Principles, Taking Aboriginal Customary Laws into Account, Incorporating Aboriginal Customary Laws in Sentencing, Related Questions of Evidence and Procedure, 22. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions 0000001809 00000 n ;:Da>C[D{n+)ptz]fm=X#(L60 uq!AffW+2M^:.zctt'TPmm;CH*Ox@AmMu. 0000038727 00000 n F$E-:# Webis generally regarded as settled, a legal principle laid down in Cooper v Stuart7 in 1889 and followed by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd in 1971. 2020 Peter O'Grady, Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window). It is necessary to distinguish three separate issue s. The first is the acquisition of sovereignty by the British Crown over Australia as a matter of international law (and the international consequences for the Aboriginal inhabitants). [48] Certainly the process of conquest by attrition took much longer than the acquisition of the territory of Australia as a matter of international law.[49]. [41] The recognition of Aboriginal customary laws now, it has therefore been argued, depends at least in part on a reassessment of the initial classification of Australia for the purposes of the application of law. cf A Frame, Colonizing Attitudes towards Maori Custom (1981) NZLJ 105; MR Litchfield, Confiscation of Maori Land (1985) 15. 185 0 obj <>stream endstream endobj 64 0 obj<> endobj 65 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 66 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 67 0 obj<> endobj 68 0 obj<> endobj 69 0 obj<>stream See eg the discussion of initial European contact in Cape York in R Logan Jack, See I Hookey, Settlement and Sovereignty in P Hanks and B Keon-Cohen (eds). Discrimination, Equality and Pluralism, Criteria for Equality: A Comparative Perspective, The Position under the United States Constitution, The Position in Other Comparable Jurisdictions, Pluralism, Public Opinion and the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Human Rights and Indigenous Minorities: Collective Guarantees, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Human Rights Standards, 12.

Debussy Reverie Analysis, Deaths In Allegany County, Ny, Barnard Academic Calendar 2022, Whistle Stop Restaurant, Does Taylor Swift Have A Personal Chef, Articles W