White Law/Black Deaths: Nomocide and the Foundational Absence of Consent in Australian Law

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Maria Giannacopoulos
{"title":"White Law/Black Deaths: Nomocide and the Foundational Absence of Consent in Australian Law","authors":"Maria Giannacopoulos","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2021.1959994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract State and police brutality around the globe in 2020 brought into sharp focus the role of legal apparatuses in causing death, particularly of black and Indigenous lives. Against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter (#BLM) events and protests, #endSARS in Nigeria and amid the ongoing fight against Aboriginal deaths in custody in Australia, the critique made by Isobell Coe in Nulyarimma v Thompson, the case that sought to have the crime of genocide and its impact as part of ongoing colonialism recognised in Australian law, is more urgent than ever. Following Coe’s critique that Australian law becomes complicit in genocide if it fails to hear Indigenous peoples protests, how do and how should legal thinkers engage with the system of Australian law especially in a climate where the direct link between settler-colonial legal infrastructures (courts, prisons, police and legislators) and the violation of Indigenous and black lives has been laid bare. A legal system lacking consent at its foundation and characterised in the present day by a refusal to hear and engage with its violent origin, while seeking to acquire consent retrospectively is nomocidal. Nomocide captures the function performed by all arms of the law in committing genocide in Australia. As such, the complicity and culpability of a system of law founded in non-consensual conditions must be reckoned with, without delay. This requires a willingness among scholars and practitioners of law to see it as deathly or nomocidal in order to begin addressing the colonial violence that stems from it.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"249 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1959994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract State and police brutality around the globe in 2020 brought into sharp focus the role of legal apparatuses in causing death, particularly of black and Indigenous lives. Against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter (#BLM) events and protests, #endSARS in Nigeria and amid the ongoing fight against Aboriginal deaths in custody in Australia, the critique made by Isobell Coe in Nulyarimma v Thompson, the case that sought to have the crime of genocide and its impact as part of ongoing colonialism recognised in Australian law, is more urgent than ever. Following Coe’s critique that Australian law becomes complicit in genocide if it fails to hear Indigenous peoples protests, how do and how should legal thinkers engage with the system of Australian law especially in a climate where the direct link between settler-colonial legal infrastructures (courts, prisons, police and legislators) and the violation of Indigenous and black lives has been laid bare. A legal system lacking consent at its foundation and characterised in the present day by a refusal to hear and engage with its violent origin, while seeking to acquire consent retrospectively is nomocidal. Nomocide captures the function performed by all arms of the law in committing genocide in Australia. As such, the complicity and culpability of a system of law founded in non-consensual conditions must be reckoned with, without delay. This requires a willingness among scholars and practitioners of law to see it as deathly or nomocidal in order to begin addressing the colonial violence that stems from it.
白人法律/黑人死亡:无杀人行为和澳大利亚法律中基本缺乏同意
摘要2020年,全球各地的国家和警察暴行使人们更加关注法律机构在造成死亡,特别是黑人和土著人死亡方面的作用。在“黑人的命也是命”(#BLM)事件和抗议活动、尼日利亚#endSARS以及澳大利亚正在进行的反对原住民在押死亡的斗争的背景下,Isobell Coe在Nulyarimma v Thompson一案中提出的批评比以往任何时候都更为紧迫,该案试图将种族灭绝罪及其影响作为澳大利亚法律承认的持续殖民主义的一部分。科批评说,如果澳大利亚法律没有听取土著人民的抗议,它就会成为种族灭绝的同谋,法律思想家如何以及应该如何参与澳大利亚法律体系,尤其是在定居者殖民地法律基础设施(法院、监狱、警察和立法者)与侵犯土著和黑人生命之间的直接联系已经暴露的环境下。一个在其基础上缺乏同意的法律体系,在当今的特点是拒绝听取和参与其暴力起源,同时寻求追溯性的同意,这是一种种族灭绝。Nomocide捕捉了所有法律部门在澳大利亚实施种族灭绝时所发挥的作用。因此,必须毫不拖延地考虑建立在非自愿条件下的法律体系的共谋和罪责。这需要学者和法律从业者愿意将其视为致命或种族灭绝,以便开始解决由此引发的殖民暴力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信