Conduct of Laws: Native Title, Responsibility, and Some Limits of Jurisdictional Thinking

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
S. Dorsett, S. Mcveigh
{"title":"Conduct of Laws: Native Title, Responsibility, and Some Limits of Jurisdictional Thinking","authors":"S. Dorsett, S. Mcveigh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2247382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is now twenty years since the High Court of Australia designated 'native title' as the site of engagement of Australian common law and jurisprudence with Indigenous law and jurisprudence in Mabo v Queensland [No 2]. Common law jurisprudence, however, continues to struggle to create the appropriate form and conduct of the relations between itself and Indigenous laws and jurisprudence. It struggles, in short, to create an appropriate meeting place of laws. In light of recent attempts to amend the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), it is timely, then, to return to the first question that is addressed in the meeting of laws in Australia, that of the authorisation of laws and the quality and conduct of the meeting place. Here the meeting of Australian common law and Indigenous law in Australia is tracked in terms of a brief history of common law jurisdictional practice, the jurisprudence of the conduct of lawful relations in and through s 223 of the Native Title Act, and official forms of responsibility for lawful relations.","PeriodicalId":46300,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2247382","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

It is now twenty years since the High Court of Australia designated 'native title' as the site of engagement of Australian common law and jurisprudence with Indigenous law and jurisprudence in Mabo v Queensland [No 2]. Common law jurisprudence, however, continues to struggle to create the appropriate form and conduct of the relations between itself and Indigenous laws and jurisprudence. It struggles, in short, to create an appropriate meeting place of laws. In light of recent attempts to amend the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), it is timely, then, to return to the first question that is addressed in the meeting of laws in Australia, that of the authorisation of laws and the quality and conduct of the meeting place. Here the meeting of Australian common law and Indigenous law in Australia is tracked in terms of a brief history of common law jurisdictional practice, the jurisprudence of the conduct of lawful relations in and through s 223 of the Native Title Act, and official forms of responsibility for lawful relations.
法律的行为:本土所有权、责任和司法思维的一些限制
自从澳大利亚高等法院在马博诉昆士兰州案[第2号]中指定“土著所有权”作为澳大利亚普通法和法理与土著法和法理相结合的地点以来,已经过去了20年。然而,普通法判例仍在努力创造自身与土著法律和判例之间关系的适当形式和行为。简而言之,它努力创造一个合适的法律会议场所。鉴于最近修订《1993年土著所有权法》(Cth)的尝试,现在是时候回到澳大利亚法律会议中解决的第一个问题,即法律的授权以及会议场所的质量和行为。在这里,澳大利亚普通法和澳大利亚土著法的相遇是根据普通法司法实践的简史,在《土著所有权法》第223条中及其通过的法律关系行为的法理,以及法律关系责任的官方形式来追踪的。
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
11.10%
发文量
10
×
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