Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 20 items :

  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Itzchak Kornfeld

This content is available to you

Edited by Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon

This content is available to you

Stephen M. Schwebel

This content is available to you

Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon

This content is available to you

Edited by Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon

This content is available to you

Edited by Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon

This content is available to you

Edited by Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon

This content is available to you

Edited by Mara Tignino and Christian Bréthaut

This content is available to you

Douglas Fisher

Water in its natural location has traditionally been regarded as a common resource to be used for the benefit of the community in question. The function of legal rules has been to grant access to the resource: for example, by the conferment of individual rights of access according to the common law or by the grant of such rights according to an institutionalized administrative system. In Australia the legacy of the common law favoured the common law riparian doctrine. The recognition of the unique environmental and climatic conditions in Australia influenced the development during the twentieth century of a public domain regime. This chapter analyzes these developments in Australia in the context of their wider doctrinal context. Keywords: Chapter 1 (Fisher): Common Resource, Roman law, Chinese law, public domain regime, riparian doctrine, Australian water law