The importance currently placed on sustainable development recognises the fundamental role of land administration and the management of land based resources. This acknowledgement of the pivotal role of land administration and tenure security reinforces the need to recognise all interest and responsibilities in land, particularly those of a customary and traditional nature. The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Pritchard 1998) respects the unique relationship between indigenous people(s) and the land, recognising the need to protect these traditions and cultures. A number of countries (specifically the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand) have implemented legal and institutional mechanisms for the recognition of this unique relationship and connection to land. In doing so it provided the precedent for the recognition of interests in land as held by indigenous peoples of Australia. / In Australia the legal recognition of indigenous interests in land occurred in 1992, with the passing of the High Court’s decision concerning Mabo and others v the State of Queensland (no.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 and the subsequent development and implementation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This federal act provides for the recognition and protection of native title within the framework of the Australian legal system . Its (native title interests) origins and foundations are those of traditional laws, connecting indigenous Australians with land and waters (S223 NTA 1993). (For complete abstract open document)

Masters Research - Master of Philosophy (Law) / In Yorta Yorta, it was expressly found that native title law could not support a ‘frozen in time’ approach. It was held that the rights making up native title could not be considered static and archaic instruments, but must be given reign to adapt. However the question must be asked whether, in its examination of the requirements of native title, Yorta Yorta has in the same breath re-introduced the ‘frozen in time’ approach, albeit in a different form. Specifically, it is a question of whether the continuity of connection requirement means that the evolution of rights is frozen and claimants are burdened with the task of proving they relate to land in exactly the same manner as their ancestors did, over 200 years ago. That is the question which this thesis attempts to answer. It will do so by examining in detail not only the requirement of continuity of connection as espoused in Yorta Yorta, but the evidentiary analysis which was performed under that requirement. It is the nature of this analysis in which the effect of continuity of connection on the nature of native title rights is revealed. This thesis will also examine the effect of Yorta Yorta on subsequent cases, particularly how subsequent Courts have interpreted the continuity of connection requirement and how it has affected the questions of proof they felt the claimants were required to answer. Particularly highlighted will be the cases of Larrakia and Single Noongar, two cases which have brought about starkly different outcomes for the claimants. The approach taken will be to discuss whether the requirements of native title in Yorta Yorta have produced a native title system which equitably and in justice recognises traditional owners’ rights to land in modern times, or whether they consign native title to being an historical relic, of little utility in reflecting the modern-day relationships of traditional owners to their land. In other words, was Yorta Yorta ‘the great re-freezing’?

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 260-266).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-05, Section: A, page: 1582. Adviser: Dianne Harris. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 392-436) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-05, Section: A, page: 1847. Adviser: Timothy R. Pauketat. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 203-227) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

Zugl.: Philadelphia, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Diss.

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-108). Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Queensland, 2003. / Includes bibliography.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: A, page: 2727. Adviser: Frederick Hoxie. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 217-226) Available on microfilm from Pro Quest Information and Learning.

<p> The transformative benefits of cross-cultural interaction and the &ldquo;disruption&rdquo; caused by the confrontation with injustice, poverty and culture shock for students through immersion experiences are well-documented. In contrast, however, there is very little research that documents the experience of host communities - those into whom the traveler is immersed. What is the experience of individuals from these host communities? What is the value or significance to them of hosting educational travel groups? What opportunities exist for educational travel programs to be venues for decolonization and social justice work that is mutually beneficial to student groups and host communities? This project is a phenomenological study consisting of in-depth interviews with six native or indigenous community partners who worked with two high school educational travel programs&mdash;one internationally and one domestically. Participants reported a clear understanding of their co-educational role and attached broader global and spiritual significance to that. A number of recommendations emerged for building mutually beneficial relationships in the context of educational travel.</p>