Year: 2013
Type: article
Abstract: Much has been written by non-Indigenous Australians in the wake of the 1992 Mabo case following its rejection of terra nullius in Australia. What is surprising about this literature is the lack of discussion about sovereignty, which is a logical consequence of the Mabo decision’s conclusion that the basis for Crown sovereignty was incorrect. What little has been said about sovereignty since Mabo can be placed into two broad groups. The first calls for various forms of First Peoples’ sovereignties, and is made up almost exclusively of First Peoples scholars. The other group is dominated by non-Indigenous people who speak instead of citizenship, shared responsibility, native title, reconciliation, rights, self-management, multiculturalism, colonisation and postcolonial theory. This article is directed to non-Indigenous scholars who write on these topics. It is a critique of their scholarship, notwithstanding its merit to the extent that literature questions injustice, dispossession, genocide, discrimination and colonial policy. The basis for this critique is that this scholarship fails to bring First Peoples’ sovereignties to the fore, and for this reason persists as colonial knowledge. To make this argument, the article identifies with feminist standpoint theory and Indigenous standpoint theory to contend that First Peoples’ sovereignties must be embraced by non-Indigenous scholars.
Source: Griffith Law Review
Author: Allan Ardill
Institution: Griffith University
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2001662330