Indigenous Australia and the pre-legal society in HLA Hart’s The Concept of Law

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY
Diana Anderssen
{"title":"Indigenous Australia and the pre-legal society in HLA Hart’s The Concept of Law","authors":"Diana Anderssen","doi":"10.4337/jlp.2023.01.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The continuing existence and operation of the traditional law of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has – relatively recently – been explicitly acknowledged in Australian law. In emerging case law on the subject, the High Court of Australia has confirmed the common law recognition of the survival of Indigenous Australian law. However, in determining what it is that is recognized by the common law – in interpreting Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’ – the High Court has disregarded the knowledge reposed in those with authority or expertise in Indigenous Australian law, relying instead upon concepts and assumptions from the jurisprudence of English legal philosopher, HLA Hart. The influence of Hart’s theory in the Australian High Court’s interpretation of Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’ is problematic, because it contains an obvious pre-legal–legal dualism reminiscent of the ‘state of nature’ – ‘civil society’ mechanism that was instrumental in the application of terra nullius to Australia. At the heart of The Concept of Law lies the notion of progression from a ‘primitive community’ with only primary rules, to an advanced legal system with a combination of both primary and secondary rules. In this article, I investigate how Indigenous Australians are positioned in relation to Hart’s pre-legal–legal dualism. I examine the ‘primitive’, pre-legal society in The Concept of Law, and its counterpart, the advanced legal system, to analyze the position of Indigenous Australian societies and law in Hart’s scheme. Finally, I analyze the construction of the dualism and consider its impact on the High Court’s interpretation of Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’.","PeriodicalId":41811,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Filosofia del Diritto-Journal of Legal Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Filosofia del Diritto-Journal of Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/jlp.2023.01.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The continuing existence and operation of the traditional law of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has – relatively recently – been explicitly acknowledged in Australian law. In emerging case law on the subject, the High Court of Australia has confirmed the common law recognition of the survival of Indigenous Australian law. However, in determining what it is that is recognized by the common law – in interpreting Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’ – the High Court has disregarded the knowledge reposed in those with authority or expertise in Indigenous Australian law, relying instead upon concepts and assumptions from the jurisprudence of English legal philosopher, HLA Hart. The influence of Hart’s theory in the Australian High Court’s interpretation of Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’ is problematic, because it contains an obvious pre-legal–legal dualism reminiscent of the ‘state of nature’ – ‘civil society’ mechanism that was instrumental in the application of terra nullius to Australia. At the heart of The Concept of Law lies the notion of progression from a ‘primitive community’ with only primary rules, to an advanced legal system with a combination of both primary and secondary rules. In this article, I investigate how Indigenous Australians are positioned in relation to Hart’s pre-legal–legal dualism. I examine the ‘primitive’, pre-legal society in The Concept of Law, and its counterpart, the advanced legal system, to analyze the position of Indigenous Australian societies and law in Hart’s scheme. Finally, I analyze the construction of the dualism and consider its impact on the High Court’s interpretation of Indigenous Australian ‘traditional laws and customs’.
哈特《法的概念》中的澳大利亚土著与前法律社会
澳大利亚法律最近明确承认土著和托雷斯海峡岛民传统法律的继续存在和实施。在关于这一问题的新判例法中,澳大利亚高等法院确认普通法承认澳大利亚土著法律的存续。然而,在确定普通法所承认的内容时——在解释澳大利亚土著的“传统法律和习俗”时——高等法院忽视了那些在澳大利亚土著法律方面拥有权威或专业知识的人的知识,而是依赖于英国法律哲学家HLA Hart的法理概念和假设。哈特的理论在澳大利亚高等法院对澳大利亚土著“传统法律和习俗”的解释中的影响是有问题的,因为它包含了一种明显的前法律-法律二元论,让人想起“自然状态”-“公民社会”机制,这种机制在澳大利亚的无主地适用中发挥了重要作用。《法的概念》的核心在于从一个只有基本规则的“原始社会”到一个既有基本规则又有次要规则的高级法律体系的发展概念。在这篇文章中,我调查了澳大利亚土著居民是如何定位于哈特的前法律-法律二元论的。在《法律的概念》一书中,我考察了“原始的”前法律社会,以及与之对应的先进的法律体系,以分析澳大利亚土著社会和法律在哈特计划中的地位。最后,我分析了二元论的构建,并考虑了它对高等法院解释澳大利亚土著“传统法律和习俗”的影响。
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
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Rivista di Filosofia del diritto (Journal of Legal Philosophy) publishes highly qualified scientific contributions on matters related to Philosophy and Theory of Law, Legal Sociology and related fields of research. Its publication is promoted by the Italian Association for Legal Philosophy (Italian Section of the Internationale Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie), being its Official journal. It is aimed also at promoting the encounter and exchange between Italian and foreign legal-philosophical traditions. Two issues per year will be published, and articles submitted will be reviewed under the best European standards of evaluation.
×
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