Êtes-vous un étudiant de l'EPFL à la recherche d'un projet de semestre?
Travaillez avec nous sur des projets en science des données et en visualisation, et déployez votre projet sous forme d'application sur GraphSearch.
Concept
Nulyarimma v Thompson
Résumé
Nulyarimma v Thompson was an Australian court case decided by the Federal Court of Australia. Two separate cases, Nulyarimma v Thompson and Buzzacott v Minister for the Environment were heard in conjunction. In both cases, members of the Aboriginal community alleged that certain members of the Australian Parliament and government ministers had committed genocide. The case was decided in favour of the Government.
In 1997, the Howard government proposed a “ten point plan” to reform the operation of native title in Australia. The plan eventually became the Native Title Amendment 1998. The appellants claimed that the consequences of the “ten point plan” amounted to genocide as it severely restricted and disadvantaged Indigenous Australians' land ownership, livelihood and mental health.
In April 1999, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, formally refused to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre, instead allowing a mining company, BHP Billiton to commence mining operations. The appellant, Kevin Buzzacott, claimed that Downer's failure to pursue World Heritage listing amounted to genocide against his people.
Julian Burnside QC and five Senathiraja argued for the appellants that genocide is a part of customary international law, and that even without legislation criminalising genocide within Australia, Australian courts can try individuals accused of genocide. The “ten point plan” constituted genocide because it was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Aboriginal race. The appellants, particularly Ms Nulyarimma, gave evidence to the Court of attempted genocide. Further, Burnside argued that the respondent's failure to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre amounted to genocide as BHP Billiton's mining operations threatened the flora, fauna and livelihood of his people by allegedly draining the lake.
H Burmester QC, M Perry and R Bayliss argued on behalf of the respondents that customary international law did not form a part of Australian domestic law and therefore no Australian court has jurisdiction to try individuals for genocide.
Source officielle
À propos de ce résultat
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.