With the recognition of Aboriginal title by the High Court of Australia in 1992 in Mabo No. 2, the issue of all other Aboriginal laws and the idea of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty became a living issue. Sovereignty, in my view, is the legal personality of the indigenous political system – and this social complex, sometimes called sovereignty, should be recognized. But what is the question? Australia`s history has made it a difficult problem, as has the refusal of politicians to defend this issue. The result was that sovereignty was shared in the federation established by the Commonwealth of Australia.  The Commonwealth and the states were sovereign in their own spheres. Both maintained independent relations with the Crown through the British Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Commonwealth had no say or involvement in matters such as appointing or removing governors, reserving state bills, or violating state laws. All this was dealt with by the monarch on the advice of British ministers.
The states were in favour of this result because they regarded the British as less politically interested in their affairs than the Commonwealth government and were therefore more just and reasonable in their dealings. In the Australian context, it follows that outdated and unjust racial theories must be replaced by recognition of the former jurisdiction and enduring politics of Aboriginal nations. That must be the full meaning of Aboriginal sovereignty, and that is what future Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties must recognise. Noel Pearson argued that « local Indigenous sovereignty within a nation-state could exist within, provided the fullest rights to self-determination are granted. » But that`s exactly where we have the problem. The Australian State has consistently failed to understand and accept the right of its indigenous peoples to full right to self-determination. There have also been moves toward constitutional amendments to recognize previous occupation and ownership (and thus sovereignty) and to have an indigenous voice in parliament enshrined in the constitution. It is this attachment to place through ancestors and tradition that allows those of us who can claim a kind of sovereignty that precedes settlers to have a sense of place that is at once deeply emotional, social, and political. It is this ancestral bond that makes sacrifices worthwhile and allows one to believe in one`s own humanity. In February 2012, the lawyer and Australian of the Year 2009, Mick Dodson AM FASSA, addressed Parliament on the theme of « constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians ». He raised three issues: the recognition in the constitution that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the first in Australia and were also in possession of the land when the British Crown asserted sovereignty over the entire continent, and it follows that the land was taken without consent; the second relates to Aboriginal identity issues, which are respected and protected by the Constitution and Australian law; and the third element relates to equality of citizenship before the law.  In 1988, the Aboriginal Sovereign Treaty `88 campaign called for the recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty and the adoption of a treaty between the Commonwealth of Australia and Aborigines.  Gilbert became chairman of the Treaty of `88 campaign.
He set out the legal case for one or more treaties and Aboriginal sovereignty in his 1987 book Aboriginal Sovereignty.  In our view, Her Majesty`s relationship with the government (or governments) of a country of which she is Queen is a matter of the internal affairs of that country. Australia as a whole is independent. When the UK withdraws, the government of this independent country will include all Australian governments (Commonwealth and State) – in other words, « independence » and « sovereignty » will not only be the prerogative of Commonwealth ministers.  They remained the rightful inhabitants and owners of the land, but their sovereignty was diminished. For Aborigines, sovereignty consists of three components: land, law and people. In establishing these relationships, the rights of indigenous peoples were by no means completely ignored; but were necessarily significantly weakened. They have been recognized as legitimate occupants of the land, with a legal and equitable right to retain ownership of the land and use it as they see fit; But their rights to full sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily curtailed, and their power to dispose of the land as they wished was negated by the original basic principle that discovery gave exclusive rights to those who had made it. States have not only won a victory in maintaining their own sovereign status and their independent relationship with the crown. More important was section 15 of the Australian Laws of 1986, which secured their place in Australian sovereignty. The original source of the Commonwealth Constitution was the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament.
The Commonwealth Constitution was legally binding because it was a British law of supreme force. British legislative supremacy over Australia was reduced by the Statute of Westminster, but ended by the Australian Acts. 3. Three major U.S. Supreme Court decisions, known as the Marshall Trilogy, limited Indian sovereignty. The status of Aborigines – or indigenous nations – is disputed. Some deny having sovereign rights, and others argue that their rights to self-determination exist. In a High Court decision, Coe v. The Commonwealth (1979) concluded that the acquisition of sovereignty is an act of the State which cannot be controlled and is therefore not justiciable in the district courts. However, Noel Pearson argued that a concept of sovereignty inherent in Indigenous groups prior to the European invasion in that people have concepts of having laws, lands and institutions without interference from outside their society, the common law system is the legal system followed in Australia and inherited from the United Kingdom.
The common law is developed by judges on a case-by-case basis, based on case law and interpretation of previous court decisions. Written laws (Acts of Parliament) may be enacted on matters not covered by case law or with the intention of substituting jurisdiction. However, written laws may not cover all eventualities. Common law courts are based on an adversarial method of work, in which two parties (for example, the prosecution and the defendant in some criminal cases) submit their cases to a neutral judge or jury for decision. The power to amend or repeal these fundamental laws, which constitute our Constitution, the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia of 1900, the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and the Australian Laws of 1986, was transferred by section 15 of the Australia Act 1986 (United Kingdom) not to the Commonwealth, but collectively to the Commonwealth and all state parliaments.