In March this year, the High Court handed down a decision many Aboriginal land rights advocates had waited decades to see.

In Commonwealth v Yunupingu, the court confirmed Native Title is a form of property protected under Australia's Constitution, and when the Commonwealth extinguishes it, Traditional Owners are entitled to compensation on "just terms".

The case centred on Gumatj people in north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, where Native Title rights were affected by long-running bauxite mining operations near Nhulunbuy.

The ruling upheld earlier Federal Court findings that the Commonwealth was liable to pay compensation for the loss of those rights.

While the decision was widely welcomed as a significant step forward for Native Title holders, new academic research argues it also exposes the limits of Australia's legal framework, particularly when it comes to Indigenous sovereignty.

A paper published in a 2025 issue of Australian Aboriginal Studies, produced by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), revisits a series of High Court decisions and concludes Australian courts have avoided confronting Indigenous sovereignty directly.

The authors argue even decisions such as Yunupingu — which recognise Native Title as a constitutionally protected property right — stop short of engaging with deeper question of Indigenous peoples' inherent authority over land and governance.

"Native Title has been recognised as a legal interest, but sovereignty has remained outside the frame," the paper states, describing a pattern in which courts acknowledge limited rights without challenging the foundations of Australian constitutional law.

The research revisits earlier High Court cases, including Walker v New South Wales and Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria, arguing they entrenched legal tests which narrow Indigenous rights while leaving the question of sovereignty unresolved.

In the Yorta Yorta decision, handed down in 2002, the High Court rejected a Native Title claim in northern Victoria, finding traditional laws and customs had been "washed away by the tide of history".

According to the authors, such decisions reveal a judicial reluctance to acknowledge Indigenous legal orders as continuing and authoritative systems in their own right.

"The courts have repeatedly found ways to recognise aspects of Indigenous connection to land without addressing the implications of sovereignty," the paper argues.

The Yunupingu case, they say, demonstrates both progress and constraint.

While the ruling strengthens the position of Native Title holders seeking compensation, it does not challenge the assumption that ultimate authority over land remains with the Australian state.

Legal experts say the debate is timely as governments across the country continue to pursue treaty negotiations and post-referendum reform.

Treaty processes are underway in Victoria, Queensland and the NT, while WA has committed to a state-wide truth-telling process.

Each raises questions about how Indigenous sovereignty is understood — both politically and legally.

The authors argue without a shift in legal thinking, treaty and self-determination processes risk operating within limits set by courts that have never fully reckoned with Indigenous sovereignty.

"Recognition of native title alone cannot resolve the structural constraints faced by Indigenous peoples," the paper concludes.

For the Gumatj people involved in Yunupingu, the High Court decision marked a significant acknowledgment of loss and entitlement.

However the research also highlights a broader tension between incremental legal recognition and the deeper, unresolved question of who holds authority over land in Australia.