Simpson (1993) observed, “in Mabo the Court, having found that Australia was not terra nullius, baulked at considering these two alternatives (ceded or conquest, my emphasis) and instead invented a completely new category of acquisition- i.e. the occupation of already occupied territory (or occupation of land that is not terra nullius) The semantic impossibility of such a finding is matched by its apparent lack of authoritative support in international law.” More specifically he noted that both Blackburn, J in Milirrpum and the Majority in Mabo used the same authorities, yet “came to the opposite conclusion.” In so doing Mabo “is a judgment that shows the manipulation of the common law and the disregarding of two hundred years of precedent on terra nullius and resulting in a theory that lacks foundation in international law.”
Posted on: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:45:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015