To what extent the Mabo Decision remained successful in perturbing the doctrine of

Terra Nullius

Terra Nullius law or land of no use gained significance when Mabo V. Queensland brought in the Australian court and was settled to make the declaration of 'Terra Nullius' secede. While the decision was being handled on the Mabo matter under Australian Law in favour of those Murray islanders to whom the judges were concerned to mention the legal points on which their views were to be based upon. The 6:1 judgement was in favour of the 'native title rights' almost forgetting the truth that in 1788 Australia was discovered by Captain Cook under terra nullius. The majority of six to one overthrow the High Court decision according to which Australian common law survived the indigenous rights of acquiring the sovereignty of the continent by Britain despite the fact that terra nullius theory was inappropriately applied to such a land which proved clearly been occupied.

Applying the terra nullius to such incongruous situation, the judges on one hand brought Australian common law into a critical state where in the eye of other nations who had inherited the English common law system, inclusive of the Canadian and New Zealand various former British African colonies, the decision was not worth to be tagged along. While on the other hand, the High Court while recognising native title rule declared the sovereignty of Australian government by mentioning their power to acquire native title anytime when subjected to remain within legal boundaries. In this case the example of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was provided and pointed by the judges.

In this context other nations believed Mabo an irrational decision that lacked radical justice. Of course they are true to the extent where they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of such indigenous right which already existed in Australian history but to which Australia has been proud to consider since Native Title Act. Australian court has not been so much absurd in realising the realities of life in Australia particularly when recognition is required from various forms of title since the advent of British sovereignty. 

Chief Justice Brennan proposed some principles pertinent to the Mabo decision. The foremost principle stated that under any circumstance the Crown's Sovereign power of acquisition cannot be defied or tested in any Municipal Court for the reason that only Crown has the authority to a radical title in any part in Australia. It is through the effects of the Native title that Crown's acquisition of sovereignty survived therefore, all those rights and privileges by native title would remain impermeable by the Crown's acquisition, however in situations where the Crown has alienated or captured land by granting a concern that is whatsoever wholly or partially affecting the inconsistency to enjoy native title, native title is quenched. Here the notion 'extinguishing in context with native titles' depends upon various conditions set up by the Crown. The concern of Crown that revolved around the issue of 'Native title to particular land' whether favored the classification of indigenous people by the common law enabled the people associated with the entitlement to be ascertain according to the laws and customs of the indigenous people who by any legal means acquire a connection with the land. For this concern, the only requirement is that of being an authentic member of the indigenous group that relies heavily upon the biological descent or mutual recognition. Native title again is subjected to various conditions to enjoy including the connection with the last member of the group or waste of lands.