A Simple Nullity?
The Wi Parata Case in New Zealand Law & History
Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Law, Property, History, Australia & Oceania
| Author: | David V. Williams | ISBN: | 9781775580089 |
| Publisher: | Auckland University Press | Publication: | August 1, 2011 |
| Imprint: | Auckland University Press | Language: | English |
| Author: | David V. Williams |
| ISBN: | 9781775580089 |
| Publisher: | Auckland University Press |
| Publication: | August 1, 2011 |
| Imprint: | Auckland University Press |
| Language: | English |
When the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled on Wi Parata v the Bishop of Wellington in 1877, the judges infamously dismissed the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi. During the past 25 years, judges, lawyers, and commentators have castigated this simple nullity” view of the treaty. The infamous case has been seen as symbolic of the neglect of Maori rights by settlers, the government, and New Zealand law. In this book, the Wi Parata case-the protagonists, the origins of the dispute, the years of legal back and forth-is given a fresh look, affording new insights into both Maori-Pakeha relations in the 19th century and the legal position of the treaty. As relevant today as they were at the time of the case ruling, arguments about the place of Indigenous Maori and Pakeha settlers in New Zealand are brought to light.
When the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled on Wi Parata v the Bishop of Wellington in 1877, the judges infamously dismissed the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi. During the past 25 years, judges, lawyers, and commentators have castigated this simple nullity” view of the treaty. The infamous case has been seen as symbolic of the neglect of Maori rights by settlers, the government, and New Zealand law. In this book, the Wi Parata case-the protagonists, the origins of the dispute, the years of legal back and forth-is given a fresh look, affording new insights into both Maori-Pakeha relations in the 19th century and the legal position of the treaty. As relevant today as they were at the time of the case ruling, arguments about the place of Indigenous Maori and Pakeha settlers in New Zealand are brought to light.
