Business Law- Mabo Case (Doc)

8 Pages2139 Words250 Views

Added on 2020-05-16

Business Law- Mabo Case (Doc)

Added on 2020-05-16

BookmarkRelated Documents

Running head: BUSINESS LAW Mabo caseName of the student:Name of the university:Author note

1BUSINESS LAWIntroduction:In Australia, after the European invasion, the aboriginals had lost their rights ontheir property and the government had made certain attempts to grab the properties ofaboriginals by way of terra nullius. The doctrine of terra nullius treats the properties asnobody’s land and therefore, hurts the traditional cultures of the aboriginals. The Mabo casehas, for the first time established the rights of the aboriginals and introduced the concept ofnative land title and therefore, become a remarkable in the Australian history. Discussion:Mabo v Queensland No. 2 (1992) HCA 23 is one of the remarkable cases in thehistory of Australia. The term native land title was first time established through this case.The High Court of Australia has observed that the validity of the maxim terra nullius shouldbe limited in certain circumstances. Terra nullius is a Latin term that denotes the land ofnobody. It is a principle of international law that identifies certain lands as state territory. Inthe Gove Land Rights case, it was held that before European invasion, Australia was desertedland and therefore, the concept of native title does not exist. This decision was quashed inMabo case where the High Court of Australia was pleased to decide that that land will not become under the parlance of terra nullius where the inhabitants are resided. The inhabitantscan be uncivilised in nature. In 1982, Eddie Mabo and two others had rejected the proposal ofland grants for aboriginals made by the Queensland government. The land title of theaboriginals was established by the Mabo case (Rossiter and Wood 2016). The main objectivelay before the High Court was to decide whether the indigenous people had a right to claimtitle over the land or not. While deciding the fate of the case, the High Court of Australiafound that the principle of terra nullius has, in certain circumstances, violated the provincesof Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The main prayer of Mabo case was to consider the rights

2BUSINESS LAWof the Meriam people over their lands as occupier and possessor. The Judges of QueenslandSupreme Court were of the view that the concept of Native Tile is existed in the common lawand the parameter of the title is to be determined on the basis of nature and connection of theoccupier to the land. The most important part of this case is that the court was pleased todecide that aboriginals are the ancient inhabitants of Australia and their rights over the landshould be existed at all circumstances under the new sovereign legal system (Drake andGaudry 2016). Therefore, the doctrine of terra nullius was overturned by the Mabo decision.The case has certain impacts on the Australian legal system. The most significantpart of the case is that the doctrine of terra nullius has been overturned by this case. Thedoctrine of terra nullius was applied to recognise the land of the aboriginals as nobody’s landand the government was denied to accept the title of the aboriginals over the land (Yiftachel2017). It has been observed that the government of Australia had acquired all the lands of theaboriginals without any agreement and this tendency had hurt the existence and rights of theaboriginals over their property. Mabo case was succeed to establish the legal right of theindigenous people over the land and according to the High Court of Australia, theinappropriate application of terra nullius has infringed the provisions of RacialDiscrimination Act 1975. The then legal system of Australia was being challenged by theMabo case on the basis of two aspects such as the aboriginals had no idea of land ownershipand all the previous legal provisions of Australia should be abolished (Boer and Gruber2017). The main aim of this case is to consider the native title of the aboriginals and establishthe fact that aboriginals have rights and title over the properties over the land through theirancient customs. This case has helped to enact Native Title Act 1993 and clarify the legalstands of the aboriginals to make a claim under native title. The Mabo case has helped tostrengthen the base of custom law of the aboriginals. The court has decided that theaboriginals have rights over the property according to the legal provision of the native land

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

The Mabo v Queensland (No 2) Case

|10

|2044

|246

Study of MABO Case Judgement

|2637

|434

Mabo v Queensland: A Landmark Case in Constitutional Law

|16

|4780

The Native Title Act Research Paper 2022

|10

|2102

|32

Mabo Case [No.2] and its Impact on the Australian Legal System

|10

|2094

|294

The Mabo Decision and the Native Title Act: Benefits and Shortcomings

|2142

|269

Business Law- Mabo Case (Doc)