Terra nullius Essays

case of the Yirrkala community, due to the notorious laws being unwritten, the doctrine of terra nullius enabled the European power to claim the discovered land as part of its empire despite their being evident inhabitants. The British adapted the international law concept of terra nullius to govern the situation in “settled” colonies, which is how the law regarded Australia. The first test of terra nullius in Australia occurred with the decision of R v Tommy 1827, which indicated that the native

part of creating a more just society for the indigenous peoples. Native title is a form of land rights that recognises the indigenous peoples unique connection to the land, it also debunks the concept of ‘terra nullius’ allowing certain indigenous groups the right to parts of their land. Terra Nullius is the legal concept that the British claimed uninhabited land, and the indigenous people were viewed as fauna. The Indigenous Australians deserve all aspects of justice- access, equality and fairness-in

law of terra nullius and take back his people right to the land. This particular case was taken to the high court. Mabo’s argument was that indigenous people owned land prior to the law of terra nullius being put into action. The high court finally came to a decision to overturn the law of terra nullius on the 3rd of June 1992. However this decision came with a consequence, that of which was that many people did not believe that the high court had the authority to overturn the law of terra nullius

colonisation. This was a time where they were stripped off their land, separated from their children, and ties between communities were broken. These factors along with other aspects have most likely been damaging to Aboriginal Spirituality. ‘Terra Nullius’ first established in the White invasion was defined as ‘Land belonging to no one’. This term was used for land that was thought to be unoccupied despite the extricable link the Indigenous people share with it. The land is the physical place for

colony could be founded by persuading the indigenous inhabitants to submit to their power by gaining the rights to buy land and settle on it by one sided possession, on the basis of first discovery and effective occupation. The land was known as terra nullius, or wasteland, because Cook and Banks considered there were few 'natives' along the coast. They assumed that there would be fewer or none inland. Their observations were soon proven incorrect. The governors of the first settlements soon found that

This essay will analyse the extent to which Warwick Thornton’s film Samson and Delilah conforms to the conventional representations of Aboriginal Australians in the Australian context. Specifically, it will focus on three tropes that are perpetually (ubiquitously) associated with Aborigines in Australia such as poverty, drug abuse and marginalisation. These three tropes are discussed in the light of being racist notions that are attached to the concept of aboriginality by the wider Australian society

countries and regions across the world. In her article Re-centring First Nations Knowledge and Places in a Terra Nullius Space (2014), Irene Watson asserts that the foundations of colonisation are reminiscent of the book of Genesis and the instruction for man to have dominion over “every living thing that moves on Earth” (1:28). She continues by discussing that this idea underpins the notion of terra nullius, forming the basis of rules and laws in Australia which to this day continue to deny Aboriginal culture

In the extract from “Maestro” by Peter Goldsworthy, the author discusses the protagonist, Paul, and how he and his family moved from the South to Darwin. They stay in a motel room the first night and the next day they visit their new house. It shows the relationship between the family and their environment, expressing their feelings about the situation. In the prose extract, the author illustrates a rough atmosphere which the protagonist immediately loves, unlike his family, in order to create characterisation

In the short story Signs and symbols, Vladimir Nabokov shows a story of an elderly couple who has a deranged son. It is the birthday of their mental son, and they are trying to figure out what would be right to buy him since anything manufactured was evil to him. After they took out many gift ideas that they realized would not work out, they finally found a harmless gift for him. It was a basket filled with ten jars with ten different fruit jellies. The time came for them to go see their son

languages. Although the majority of people there were born in Australia, more than 75% of Australia’s population have ancestries other than Australian. It used to have another name as well, there was a man named Matthew Flinders who had proposed to brand Terra Australis for this continent in 1804, only leaving the western portion as “New Holland”. But they ended up calling it Australia because that is what they referred to it as and it is latin for “south”. One more thing people do not know about Australia

The justifications of terra nullius, manifest destiny, the vanishing indigene, and fatal impact affect the type of race relations found in a society. According to terra nullius, the justification that was used was that it’s just “empty land, and that nobody lives there.” This affects the type of race relations found in a society because people who migrate or colonize in other places use this as their justification for staying there. The justification for manifest destiny was that “god, history, fate

rights and traditional ownership, but the story of his success, and how it changed Australia, has many heroes. Along with Mabo, plaintiffs Flo Kennedy and David Passi were geared up to launch a test case in the courts to dispute the doctrine of terra nullius; the existing law that stated Australia was officially considered empty land before British settlement. However the process of carrying out a test case proved to be difficult and compelled some of the plaintiff’s to withdraw. Later in the year

European colonisation led to the loss of land for the First Nations Peoples of Australia for many reasons. Aboriginal people had a strong connection with the land, and the colonists wanted to take that away, the ideas of Terra Nullius made the colonists think it was okay and the loss of land had a tremendous impact on the Aboriginal people and made it hard to live. The Aboriginal people had a deep connection with the land, but the colonists wanted to take this away from them. While Europeans believed

due to the Europeans claiming that Australia was Terra nullius. Terra Nullius was a international law stating that if territory was not owned, it was to be given to the first nation to discover it and entitled to take over. The Europeans did not recognise the Aboriginals and Torres Strait islander people as the traditional owners of Australia and therefore took all there land rights. The indigenous people were then constricted by the terra nullius rule from 1788 to 1991. In 1972 the Prime Minister

ownership and Indigenous rights. Prior to this landmark decision, the concept of terra nullius, which denied the existence of pre-existing Indigenous land rights, dominated Australian legal and political discourse. This essay explores how the Mabo case challenged this notion, leading to a profound shift in legal and societal understandings of land ownership in Australia. Challenging Terra Nullius The term terra nullius, meaning "land belonging to no one," was a doctrine used by British colonizers

society in various ways. Firstly, the Mabo Decision was significant because it acknowledged the ownership of traditional lands by abolishing “terra nullius”, meaning that the land is empty and owned by no one. Previously, the British denied the Indigenous Australians' connection and ownership of the land by declaring that Australia was "terra nullius". However, on the 3rd of June, 1992, the High Court decided that the Merriam people were "entitled as against the whole word to possession, occupation

The Aboriginals spoke their own language, had their own laws and customs, and mostly a strong connection with the country’s land. The British arrived to the shores and declared Australia ‘terra nullius’ meaning empty land that belongs to no body. The land clearly wasn’t uninhabited but the Indigenous people no longer had the right to use the land as they please freely. Under international law Australia was now British land. As a result, Aboriginal

ownership of their ancestral land. The Case of Mabo v Queensland (N.2) asked the High Court whether the Meriam people of the Murray Islands were permitted to hold native title over their land. This idea had not been tested earlier as the doctrine of terra nullius was seen to concern all Australian land. The plaintiff’s argued that Meriam people should be given the right to the Murray Islands "as owners; as possessors; as occupiers; or as persons entitled to use and enjoy the said islands". The Murray Islander

20% Percentage by which Aboriginal Australians are more likely to commit offences of violence than their non-Indigenous counterparts (Korff,2016). The media depicts Indigenous people as trouble makers that begin violence. However, that is a false representation because they are many loving and caring Indigenous people in Australia. Just because one Indigenous person is into violence it doesn’t make it right for the media to portray all Indigenous people as violent trouble makers. 20 % of Indigenous

recognises Indigenous land rights and uses historical evidence to justify legal decisions. Utilising law and history reshaped legal history and redefined legal doctrines, notably with Indigenous land rights and how it overturned the doctrine of terra nullius. The 'Mabo' case, decided in 1992 by the High Court of Australia, challenged this doctrine by affirming Indigenous land rights, specifically on Eddie Mabo's claim to Murray Island. The essay ventures into the breakdown of the case decision. Looking