Australian colonial #1

1975 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-187
Author(s):  
Philip J. Schofield
Keyword(s):  
Australian Colonial

scholarly journals German-Australian colonial entanglements

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Lars Eckstein ◽  
Andrew W. Hurley
Keyword(s):  
Australian Colonial

Isozyme Variation in Australian and South-African Populations of Emex australis Steinh

1990 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 161 ◽  
Author(s):  
FD Panetta
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Isozyme Variation ◽  
Native Range ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Emex Australis ◽  
African Populations ◽  
Native Populations ◽  
Australian Colonial ◽  
South African Populations

Isozyme variation was surveyed at 25 loci in 65 Australian (colonial) and 21 South African (native) populations of Emex australis. Only one polymorphism, restricted in distribution to the eastern States, was observed in Australia. Three additional polymorphisms were detected in South African populations, but most (16) South African populations were indistinguishable from the Australian ones. Thus, the relative uniformity of colonial populations of E. australis reflects the low level of isozyme variation in many populations within its native range.

Terra Nullius? Temporal Legal Pluralism in an Australian Colony

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-485
Author(s):  
Shane Chalmers
Keyword(s):  
South Australia ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
Temporal Dimension ◽  
Common View ◽  
Terra Nullius ◽  
Australian Colonial ◽  
The Status ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Land

There remains a puzzle as to the status of Indigenous land rights in Australian colonial law. The common view is that the laws of the British colonies, and subsequently of the federated state, did not recognise Indigenous land rights until late in the 20th century. Against this, a smaller body of scholarship argues that recognition had already occurred much earlier, the clearest instance being in the colony of South Australia in the 1830s and 1840s. The result is an apparent duplicity in the colonial law, whereby Indigenous land rights appear to have been both recognised and denied. The article shows a tendency in the scholarly literature to resolve this duplicity in absolute terms, based on positivist analysis of law. In contrast, by taking a critical legal pluralist approach, the article shows how different and even contradictory manifestations of the same law subsisted simultaneously through time. This both sheds new light on the question of the recognition of Indigenous land rights in Australian colonial law, and contributes theoretically to ‘critical legal pluralism’ by developing its temporal dimension.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document