Indigenous-derived boundaries have been existent since time immemorial in Australia. The landmark decision recognised the continued existence of Indigenous customary title under the common law and the Commonwealth codified the processes for recognition and extinguishment. After thirty years of ongoing recognition, Australia is moving into the implementation and leveraging phases of legislative Native Title. This paper considers how the boundaries of these interests can be unambiguously identified on the ground if required. To do this we first discuss Indigenous customary title itself, how boundaries were understood in pre-European Australia and the nature of evidence relied on by the Federal Court to make Native Title determinations. By examining all litigated Native Title determinations made under the we analyse the decisions in light of the well-established common law boundary determination principles. Similarities are drawn between the hierarchy of evidence used to reinstate typical cadastral and Native Title boundaries. From this, an elementary framework was constructed to allow a surveyor to better understand the Court’s decision-making. We conclude that it is too early to be definitive as to how the courts will resolve Native Title boundary disputes, if they ever eventuate, but there is sufficient evidence to make preliminary evaluations of the relative merit of Native Title boundary evidence.

中文翻译：

---

将土著边界纳入澳大利亚法律

澳大利亚自古以来就存在源自土著的边界。这一具有里程碑意义的裁决承认土著习惯所有权在普通法下的继续存在，并且英联邦将承认和废除的程序编入法典。经过三十年的持续认可，澳大利亚正在进入立法原住民所有权的实施和利用阶段。本文考虑了如何在需要时在实地明确确定这些利益的边界。为此，我们首先讨论土著习惯所有权本身、前欧洲时代澳大利亚如何理解边界以及联邦法院做出土著所有权裁决所依赖的证据的性质。通过审查根据《原住民土地权诉讼法》作出的所有诉讼裁决，我们根据既定的普通法边界确定原则对这些裁决进行分析。用于恢复典型地籍和原住民土地权边界的证据层次之间存在相似之处。由此构建了一个基本框架，使调查员能够更好地理解法院的决策。我们的结论是，如果原住民土地权边界纠纷最终发生，现在确定法院将如何解决还为时过早，但有足够的证据可以对原住民土地权边界证据的相对价值进行初步评估。