Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
The colonisers acknowledged the presence of Indigenous people but justified their land acquisition policies by saying the Aborigines were too primitive to be actual owners and sovereigns and that they had no readily identifiable hierarchy or political order which the British Government could recognise or negotiate with.
Britain did not follow any of three rules in Australia. Since there were already people living in Australia, Britain could not take possession by "settling" this country. However from the time of Captain Cook's arrival the British Government acted as if Australia were uninhabited.
Mabo declared that terra nullius had never legally existed and that it had been wrongfully applied to Australia
The High Court of Australia issued a judgment which was a direct overturning of terra nullius. In this case, the Court found that there was a concept of native title in common law, that the source of native title was the traditional connection to or occupation of the land
Translated into English it means "A land that belongs to no one"
According to the international law of Europe in the late 18th century, there were only three ways that Britain could take possession of another country:
1. If the country was uninhabited, Britain could claim and settle that country. In this case, it could claim ownership of the land.
2. If the country was already inhabited, Britain could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land. In this case, Britain could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.
3. If the country was inhabited, Britain could take over the country by invasion and conquest- in other words, defeat that country in war. However, even after winning a war, Britain would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.