The Mabo Decision

The Murray Island plaintiffs in the Mabo case did not dispute the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown over their islands back in 1879. And the Justices said that the question of whether that sovereignty had been validly acquired was not something the Court could consider.

A number of earlier decisions in Australia, as well as in England, determined that "the acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time, is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts... "

So did it follow then, that the Australian colonies should be regarded as 'settled colonies', so that English law was received and applicable from the outset? The Justices did not overturn this proposition either.

• Terra Nullius Defined
• International Law
• Colonisation
• Human Rights
• Takeovers
• Bases For Takeovers
• Justifications
• Barbarism
• Hierarchies Of Land Use
• Recent Changes To International Law
• Territorial Integrity
• The Common Law Of England
• Common Law Rules For New English Territories
• Settled & Conquered Colonies
• The Status Of The Australian Colonies
• Reception Of English Law
• Sovereignty & Ownership Distinguished
• Other Lands Settled By The British
• Terra Nullius & Australia
• Crown Land
• Gove Case
• The Gove Decision Questioned
• The Mabo Case
• The Mabo Decision
• Britain's Acquisition Of Sovereignty
• Pre-Existing Land Rights
• The Doctrine Of Tenures Reconsidered
• Extinguishment Of Native Title
• Sovereignty & Indigenous Self-Government