ABSTRACT
However, in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992), the High Court, while affirming Britain’s acquisition of sovereignty (and the extinguishment of indigenous authority), rejected the terra nullius doctrine, stating that native title rights in land continued in existence after settlement, in so far as they had not been extinguished by introduced law. It should be noted, however, that the scope of the ruling in Mabo was quite narrow: the court did not say that Australia had been acquired by conquest, which would have led to the inevitable conclusion that all Aboriginal law not displaced by a positive act under the received law had survived. Instead, it maintained the position that Australia had been acquired by settlement and that English law had become the general law, but held that, in the specific case of land, title held under Aboriginal custom survived, unless it was extinguished by the received legal system.
