Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[19PacRimLPolyJ0303] Fee Simple Estate and Footholds in Fishing: The Australian High Court's Formalistic Interpretation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Coldwell, Heather Ahlstrom
dc.contributor.author Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal
dc.date.accessioned 2010-12-15T19:00:33Z
dc.date.available 2010-12-15T19:00:33Z
dc.date.issued 2010-04
dc.identifier.citation 19 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 303 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1066-8632
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/506
dc.description.abstract Abstract: The coast of the Northern Territory in Australia boasts some of the world's best fishing and hosts a lucrative commercial fishing industry. The Northern Territory is also home to over 50,000 Aboriginal people who rely on these waters for their subsistence and livelihood. However, the Aboriginal population is effectively barred from participating in the commercial fishing industry by Territory regulations and economic disadvantage. In July 2008, ten years of litigation over access to coastal waters adjoining Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory culminated with the High Court's decision in Northern Territory of Australia v. Arnhem Land Aboriginal Trust. The High Court recognized that the Aboriginal landowners had estates in fee simple to the tidal waters adjoining their land. While the High Court recognized the boundaries of Aboriginal lands extend over intertidal land, it did not analyze the potential conflict between property interests of the Aboriginal landowners and those rights conferred by a fishing license. This limitation was partially based on the Court's ruling that a license issued under the Northern Territory's Fisheries Act, without more, does not grant permission to enter and take fish from the Aboriginal intertidal waters. However, the decision left open the possibility that the Northern Territory could enact new legislation or amend the Fishing Act in order to augment the Territory's authority to regulate in the granted intertidal waters. This comment argues that unless the Northern Territory acts in accordance with Aboriginal best interests and in cooperation with Aboriginal landowners, such future legislation would likely conflict with Commonwealth law enacted for the benefit of the Aboriginal population. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Comment en_US
dc.title [19PacRimLPolyJ0303] Fee Simple Estate and Footholds in Fishing: The Australian High Court's Formalistic Interpretation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2010 by Pacific Rim Law & Policy Association en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law

Advanced Search


My Account