European 'International Law' as it existed in the late 18th century allowed for the acquisition of foreign land in the following ways.

1. If the country was uninhabited, a European power could claim and settle that country. Thus it could claim ownership of the land.

2 If the country was already inhabited, the European could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land, or the European power could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.

3 If the country was inhabited, the European could take over the country by invasion and conquest, defeating that country in war. However, even after winning a war, the European would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.

In the case of Australia, Britain had the above three options at its disposal, but incorrectly chose to apply the first option using the principle of ‘Terra Nullius'. Instead of admitting that it was invading land that belonged to Aboriginal people, Britain acted as if it were settling an empty space. Under its own recognised laws Britain acted illegally in acquiring the continent of Australia.

Following on from constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people it would be a natural progression to right the wrong that James Cook of Britain perpetrated in the name of George III in 1770, and subsequent Australian governments have carried on. A treaty recognising Aboriginal sovereignty of the land and at the same time seeding governance of that land to the Commonwealth is a necessity. This is not a new concept, European colonised nations such as New Zealand, Canada and the US, have treaties with their indigenous people in place...In Australia no such treaty exists, decisions effecting Aboriginal people have been imposed by governments, often without indigenous consultation...
A negotiated treaty with Aboriginal people would mark an important break from a system that for many years has failed to take into account the needs of Aboriginal Australia,

Absolutely. Let's gather together all those natives who were around in 1770 and negotiate a treaty with them. It'll be the longest treaty in history since it'll need to be written in the language of each participant and there were over 300 languages when Cook arrived. And to be true to the times, the negotiations will need to be conducted with only males since in those times women had no rights and were mere chattels. And we'll need these 250 yr old natives to work out who exactly owned which bit of property since there were no clear boundaries and consequently constant wars over this or that piece of real estate.

But other than that I don't see a problem.

mhaze, where did you get the idea that "in those times women had no rights and were mere chattels"?

Dear Paul1405,

Apart from giving us a history lesson what exactly is the point of your topic? What are you trying to say?

Just ignore it.

He's only trying to curry some favour with his partner. I wonder what he did to get into hot water with her?

Hi Hasbeen,

I don't have any hidden agenda. I'm just curious as to what Paul1405's point is that he is trying to get at.

PS I'm still waiting to get those details and examples from you on the 'alternate knowledge' that the universities are pushing. Sounds absolutely fascinating.