Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University of Adelaide Library. / "The thesis of this dissertation is that the Gleeson High Court is a largely a-theoretical Court, in that the judicial decisions of the Court are characterised by a low-level of abstraction, and the Gleeson Court does not theorise at length about the reasons for adopting a particular judicial approach. This approach distinguishes the Gleeson Court from the realist based jurisprudence of the Mason Court, which articulated the relevance of legal theory and tended to make statements of wide legal principle. The approach of the Gleeson Court also diverges from Dixonian legalism, which the analysis presented in this thesis will establish is a theoretical form of legalism." --p. 4. / http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url= http://library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=1297203 / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Law School, 2007

Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University of Adelaide Library. / "The thesis of this dissertation is that the Gleeson High Court is a largely a-theoretical Court, in that the judicial decisions of the Court are characterised by a low-level of abstraction, and the Gleeson Court does not theorise at length about the reasons for adopting a particular judicial approach. This approach distinguishes the Gleeson Court from the realist based jurisprudence of the Mason Court, which articulated the relevance of legal theory and tended to make statements of wide legal principle. The approach of the Gleeson Court also diverges from Dixonian legalism, which the analysis presented in this thesis will establish is a theoretical form of legalism." --p. 4. / http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url= http://library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=1297203 / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Law School, 2007

In Mabo v. State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 C.L.R. 1, the majority of the High Court held that ???native title??? had survived the acquisition of sovereignty over the Australian continent and is ???recognised??? by the common law. However, all the judgments failed to articulate clearly either the nature of native title as a legal form, and the relationship of that legal form to the common law, or what is meant by ???recognition???. Twelve years later the High Court has still not provided a satisfactory understanding of any of these matters. The central problem investigated by this thesis is the nature of that relationship and of the legal interest of native title. It is contended that this relationship can be understood and ordered as a matter of jurisdiction. This thesis seeks to recuperate a substantive concept of jurisdiction, and specifically of a particular jurisdiction, that of the common law, and to demonstrate how the interest of native title results from the jurisdictional relationship between common law and indigenous law. Part I is a genealogy of native title, drawn out through a history of ideas about common law jurisdiction. It is an account of the legal practice of jurisdiction, through a conceptual elaboration of a particular jurisdiction: the common law. This part traces the history of the common law from its origins in a pluralistic, fragmented, jurisdictional landscape, to its current position as the ???law of the land???. It considers the traditional mechanisms and techniques through which the common law has ordered its relationships with other jurisdictions, and how it has appropriated matters traditionally within the purview of other jurisdictions, accommodating them within the common law as ???custom???. The thesis demonstrates that the same gestures and practices can be seen in modern native title decisions, and contends that the ordering which underpins both native title, and the Australian legal system, is jurisdictional. Part II examines the practice of jurisdiction through an examination of three technologies of jurisdiction, all of which contributed to the construction of the legal entity of native title as an act of jurisdiction: mapping, accommodation and categorisation.

In Mabo v. State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 C.L.R. 1, the majority of the High Court held that ???native title??? had survived the acquisition of sovereignty over the Australian continent and is ???recognised??? by the common law. However, all the judgments failed to articulate clearly either the nature of native title as a legal form, and the relationship of that legal form to the common law, or what is meant by ???recognition???. Twelve years later the High Court has still not provided a satisfactory understanding of any of these matters. The central problem investigated by this thesis is the nature of that relationship and of the legal interest of native title. It is contended that this relationship can be understood and ordered as a matter of jurisdiction. This thesis seeks to recuperate a substantive concept of jurisdiction, and specifically of a particular jurisdiction, that of the common law, and to demonstrate how the interest of native title results from the jurisdictional relationship between common law and indigenous law. Part I is a genealogy of native title, drawn out through a history of ideas about common law jurisdiction. It is an account of the legal practice of jurisdiction, through a conceptual elaboration of a particular jurisdiction: the common law. This part traces the history of the common law from its origins in a pluralistic, fragmented, jurisdictional landscape, to its current position as the ???law of the land???. It considers the traditional mechanisms and techniques through which the common law has ordered its relationships with other jurisdictions, and how it has appropriated matters traditionally within the purview of other jurisdictions, accommodating them within the common law as ???custom???. The thesis demonstrates that the same gestures and practices can be seen in modern native title decisions, and contends that the ordering which underpins both native title, and the Australian legal system, is jurisdictional. Part II examines the practice of jurisdiction through an examination of three technologies of jurisdiction, all of which contributed to the construction of the legal entity of native title as an act of jurisdiction: mapping, accommodation and categorisation.