澳洲原住民主權──從國際原則到澳洲法院判例之初探

Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty: Preliminary Study in Relating to Principles of the International Court of Justice and Australian Court Jurisprudence

2012 年是澳洲原住民土地所有權經歷最大轉捩點的20 週年紀念。澳洲高等法院在1992 年作成『瑪莫案第二號』判例，決定承認澳大利亞原住民土地所有權，並且駁回了「無主地」的學說。此判決迫使政府加緊通過『原住民土地權法』，並設立「原住民土地權法庭」來處理原住民對於取回土地權所作的訴訟。不過，澳洲政府對於原住民土地所有權的處理態度及進展一直為原住民運動者所詬病。本文透過分析主權的定義以及國際法院對於無主地的否決，嘗試以主權理論之負面主權來詮釋澳洲原住民土地所有權的法院判例，並以他山之石或許可以提供給關心台灣原住民土地所有權的人作為參考。

2012 is the turning point of the 20th anniversary of Australia’s Aboriginal native title. The High Court of Australia in 1992 made “Mamo case” jurisprudence (the Mabo No. 2) which has decided to recognize Aboriginal land ownership in Australia, and rejected the doctrine of terra nullius. This decision forced the government to pass the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and the establishment of the Aboriginal land rights court to deal with the legal action the indigenous people made to retrieve land rights. However, the Australian government’s treatment of Aboriginal lawsuit for land ownership has been criticized for indigenous rights activists. This paper analyzes the definition of sovereignty as well as the veto of terra nullius by the International Court of Justice. It tries to interpret theory of negative sovereignty to the jurisprudence of the Australian Court and might to provide as a reference for those who care about Taiwan aboriginal land ownership.