31 Human Rights Commission The doctrine is still recognised under international law insofar as it has never been repudiated. In this way, it continues to underpin the position of the New Zealand government and its legislation. The authority New Zealand Governments use to exercise legal rights over Māori lands and to control Indigenous people derives from the Doctrine (Ruru J. & Miller R.J, 2008). The United States, Australia and Canada were also claimed and colonised under the Doctrine of Discovery. In 2012 the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recommended the doctrine be repudiated, and in 2013 that it be denounced, describing it as the “shameful” root of all the discrimination and marginalisation that indigenous peoples face today (United Nations PFII, 2012-2013). The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) fourth preambular paragraph refers to the doctrine when it states: Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust (UNDRIP 2007). The Inter-Caetera (1492) set a goal of dividing Indigenous lands and territories between colonising Western powers. The Inter-Caetera was influential to the recognition of the Doctrine of Discovery in international law (Johnson v McIntosh 1823, 21 US 543). This doctrine provided that “newly-arrived Europeans automatically acquired property rights in the lands of indigenous peoples and gained political and commercial rights over the inhabitants” (Ruru, 2010, p.14). Whether treaties with colonised peoples were harsh, benevolent, obscure, or absurd, they served as a mechanism between European nations for signalling and dividing areas of interest to each other. This system, which came to be known as the Law of Nations (European), also served as a way of temporarily suspending intentions to obliterate colonised peoples. Hence, treaties secured with the good faith of indigenous peoples were frequently broken by colonisers long before the ink had dried on the parchment (Taonui, 2021). In Aotearoa, the Doctrine of Discovery “underpinned the European belief in their right to set up government sculpting societal reasoning of European superiority over all who are non-white and non-Christian alongside a supreme European entitlement to all non-white, non-Christian lands and resources” (Ngata, 2019). The early decision of the New Zealand courts in R v Symonds (1847) (NZPCC 387) found that rights of land ownership “cannot be extinguished (at least in times of peace) other than by the free consent of the Native occupiers” (p.390). However, recognition of Māori customary title was rejected by Judge Prendergast in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) (3 NZ Jur (NS) 72) in favour of the Doctrine of Discovery (p.78). In his ruling, Judge Prendergast stated that the Treaty of Waitangi was a simple nullity, which remained the default position of the New Zealand courts for over a century. It was not until the Court of Appeal’s decision in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa (2003) (NZLR 643) that the Wi Parata case was overruled, and recognition of tangata whenua customary title was restored (paragraphs [13], [31] and [183] – [185]). In response to the Court’s decision in Ngati Apa, Parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, to affirm Crown sovereignty in foreshore land (section 13). This legislation was repealed in 2011 when Parliament enacted the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana Act) 2011 which declared that “[n]either the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area” (section 11(2)). This Act, while repealing Crown ownership, also continued the Crown denial of tangata whenua rights of title to land, marine and coastal areas. Western colonial racism Western colonisation and colonial racism unleashed an unprecedented level of violence at all levels across the globe. The sheer scale of harm necessarily required an extensive accompanying ideology to justify, sanitise and exonerate colonisation and the racism (Snelgar, 2021).