澳洲原住民族的土地權──由Mabo到Akiba判例

Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia

澳洲高等法院在1992年成「瑪莫案第二號判例」（MaboNo.2），否定無主之地原則、確認原住民在習慣法下的土地／海域權權，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。高等法院接著在1996年的「威克民族案」（Wik Peoples v. Queensland）中判決，非原住民向政府承租牧地的契約書，並未因此自動消滅原住民的土地權。在2013年，高等法院又作出「阿契巴判例」（Akiba v. Corumorwealth），判定政府的法規或可「管制」漁獲行為，然而，並未因此「消滅」原住民族對於土地及海域的權利，包括商業性漁獲權。在這篇論文，我們先將回顧澳洲原住民族土地權的發展，特別是聯邦最高法院的判例、以及政府的相關立法；接下來分析「阿契巴判例」，包括背景、爭議、以及法官的論點；最後在結語之前，我們將檢視「阿契巴判例」通過五年來的回應、或是批判。 After the High Court of Australia handed down the Mabo No. 2 judgment in 1992, dismissed the principle of terra nullius, and recognized the Aboriginal land and sea rights, the government was forced to pass the Native Title Act (1993) to handle the issues. In 1996, the High Court delivered the decision Wik Peoples v. Queensland, making it clear that non-Aboriginal leases of Aboriginal lands from the government did not automatically extinguish Aboriginal land rights. In 2013, the High Court decided in Akiba v. Commonwealth that although governmental rules may “regulate” Aboriginal fishery activities, they do not accordingly “extinguish” Aboriginal land and sea rights, including commercial fishery rights. In this article, we shall start with a brief review of the development of Aboriginal land rights in Australia by examining High Court decisions and relevant legislations. The main body of this article will be focused on the background, issues, and viewpoint of the Judges on Akiba v. Commonwealth. Finally, we will look into the reactions and criticisms on the case since it was judged.