ARCHIVES
VOL. 5, ISSUE 5 (2019)
Compare the approaches to recognition, proof, and content of aboriginal title in Australia and Canada and to what extent have the Malaysian court decisions reflected either one or both of these approaches?
Authors
Monirul Islam
Abstract
Aboriginal title which becomes most important substance for indigenous people in recent time because this title and rights originated from the traditional laws, practices, traditions and customs of the natives. This paper explains how Malaysia can eliminate the problems of indigenous people regarding aboriginal title. Malaysia does not protect aboriginal title and customary rights of indigenous people when Australia and Canada protect the rights of aboriginal title. If the indigenous people lose their title, they will be abolishing their status and title. Under the common law, the recognition, proof and content and proof are developed by the Malaysian courts has been designed by Mabo [No 2] v Queensland and Calder vs British Colombia. Malaysia should follow constitutional and legislative framework, native laws and customs for defending the indigenous rights since these principles were pronounced in Mabo [No 2] and Calder case through the decisions of the Malaysian courts on Indigenous land rights.
Download
Pages:167-173
How to cite this article:
Monirul Islam "Compare the approaches to recognition, proof, and content of aboriginal title in Australia and Canada and to what extent have the Malaysian court decisions reflected either one or both of these approaches?". International Journal of Law, Vol 5, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 167-173
Download Author Certificate
Please enter the email address corresponding to this article submission to download your certificate.

