The existing rights paradigm in Aboriginal law accepts Crown sovereignty claims grounded in ethnocentric conceptions of terra nullius and discovery, and views Aboriginal rights as arising out of prior occupation. The Supreme Court of Canada has shaken this paradigm by characterizing Crown sovereignty as merely de facto until reconciled with Aboriginal sovereignty and legitimated by a treaty, by developing the duty to consult, and by characterizing reconciliation as a process that is part of a generative constitutional order. The moves the Court toward a new paradigm rooted in the principle of the equality of peoples in which treaties provide a framework for sharing sovereignty. As part of the Canadian federation, Aboriginal sovereignty can strengthen Canadas territorial integrity and contribute to Canadas economic development.<p> In the past, courts allowed the act of state doctrine to shield Crown assertions of sovereignty from scrutiny. This doctrine protects Canadas territorial integrity, but does not shield the Crowns actions from legal and constitutional scrutiny. The fundamental constitutional principle of rule of law and the de facto doctrine will protect interests that relied on assumptions of Crown sovereignty that lacked constitutional legitimacy.<p> The transformation in the fundamental principles of Aboriginal law has parallels to Thomas Kuhns description of a paradigm shift in the natural sciences. The rights paradigm is in a crisis with moral and practical dimensions. It is incommensurable with the equality paradigm, and therefore the choice of paradigms will depend on normative criteria. Fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution, international standards of human rights and the perspectives of growing numbers of practitioners in the field that are of Aboriginal ancestry are all forces that will complete the shift to the equality paradigm.<p> An equality paradigm will result in the abandonment of some Aboriginal law doctrines, and the modification of others. Aboriginal title is inconsistent with an equality paradigm because it assumes the legitimacy of the Crowns claims to sovereignty, gives the Crown a superior title, and limits Aboriginal nations to a burden of only limited and subordinate rights. The fiduciary relationship rooted in the honour of the Crown will grow into a non-hierarchical relationship with reciprocal obligations.<p> Decisions of courts can play a supporting role, but only negotiations and treaties can build a genuine partnership, effective and equitable sharing of sovereignty and ultimately reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

The existing rights paradigm in Aboriginal law accepts Crown sovereignty claims grounded in ethnocentric conceptions of terra nullius and discovery, and views Aboriginal rights as arising out of prior occupation. The Supreme Court of Canada has shaken this paradigm by characterizing Crown sovereignty as merely de facto until reconciled with Aboriginal sovereignty and legitimated by a treaty, by developing the duty to consult, and by characterizing reconciliation as a process that is part of a generative constitutional order. The moves the Court toward a new paradigm rooted in the principle of the equality of peoples in which treaties provide a framework for sharing sovereignty. As part of the Canadian federation, Aboriginal sovereignty can strengthen Canadas territorial integrity and contribute to Canadas economic development.<p> In the past, courts allowed the act of state doctrine to shield Crown assertions of sovereignty from scrutiny. This doctrine protects Canadas territorial integrity, but does not shield the Crowns actions from legal and constitutional scrutiny. The fundamental constitutional principle of rule of law and the de facto doctrine will protect interests that relied on assumptions of Crown sovereignty that lacked constitutional legitimacy.<p> The transformation in the fundamental principles of Aboriginal law has parallels to Thomas Kuhns description of a paradigm shift in the natural sciences. The rights paradigm is in a crisis with moral and practical dimensions. It is incommensurable with the equality paradigm, and therefore the choice of paradigms will depend on normative criteria. Fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution, international standards of human rights and the perspectives of growing numbers of practitioners in the field that are of Aboriginal ancestry are all forces that will complete the shift to the equality paradigm.<p> An equality paradigm will result in the abandonment of some Aboriginal law doctrines, and the modification of others. Aboriginal title is inconsistent with an equality paradigm because it assumes the legitimacy of the Crowns claims to sovereignty, gives the Crown a superior title, and limits Aboriginal nations to a burden of only limited and subordinate rights. The fiduciary relationship rooted in the honour of the Crown will grow into a non-hierarchical relationship with reciprocal obligations.<p> Decisions of courts can play a supporting role, but only negotiations and treaties can build a genuine partnership, effective and equitable sharing of sovereignty and ultimately reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

This thesis is a work of Christian theology. Its purpose is twofold: firstly to develop an adequate understanding of reconciliation at the level of peoples and nations; and secondly to make a practical contribution to resolving the problems in Australia for the welfare of all the peoples, and of the land itself. The history of the relationships between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia has left many problems, and no matter what the non-Indigenous people try to do, the Indigenous peoples of Australia continue to experience themselves as being in a state of siege. Trying to understand what is happening, and what can be done to resolve the problems for the peoples of Australia and the land, have been the implicit drivers for the theological development in this thesis. This thesis argues that the present generation in any trans-generational dispute is likely to continue to sin in ways that are shaped by the sins of the past, which explains why Indigenous peoples in Australia find themselves in a stage of siege, even when the non-Indigenous peoples are trying to pursue policies which they believe are for the welfare of all. The only way to resolve this is for the peoples of Australia to seek reconciliation. In particular, the non-Indigenous peoples need to repent, both of their own sins, and the sins of their forebears. Reconciliation processes have become part of the international political landscape. However, there are real concerns about the justice of pursuing reconciliation. An important part of the theological development of this thesis is therefore to show that pursuing reconciliation establishes justice. It is shown that the nature of justice, and of repentance, can only be established by pursuing reconciliation. Reconciliation is possible because God has made it possible, and is working in the world to bring reconciliation. Because land is an essential part of Indigenous identity in Australia, the history of land in court cases and legislation in Australia over the past half century forms an important case study in this work. It is shown that, although there was significant repentance within the non-Indigenous legal system in Australia, the degree of repentance available through that legal system is inherently limited, and so a more radical approach is needed in order to seek reconciliation in Australia. A final chapter considers what the non-Indigenous people of Australia need to do in order to repent.