If I ever manage to make inroads with educating mob about International Law and decolonisation – the “Blue Water Thesis” aka “Saltwater Doctrine” aka “Belgium Thesis” is probably going to be rolled out as an excuse as to why we can’t decolonise or achieve sovereignty on our terms.
But I am going to pre-empt the rolling out of this argument here.
According to the usual understanding of the Blue Water Thesis, if your coloniser is administering your territory FROM your territory (or from directly adjacent territory), and not from “overseas” – then it is not real colonialism. You have to have “blue water”, or “salt water” in between your country and the foreign colonial invader to count as “real” colonialism. When there is no oceanic separation, there is no option for decolonisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_water_thesis
The territory of Australia is generally accepted as being administered by the Australian government. So, on the face of it (prima facie) there is no blue water separation between Aboriginal peoples and their occupying administrators, so it is not a colonial situation requiring decolonisation. But if you read the constitution/s, the Australian governments still derive 100% of their authority from overseas. Australia is technically administered from overseas, with everything delegated locally by the Crown. With all the smoke and mirrors; one could be forgiven for thinking that the Australian territory is fully locally administered, although technically and constitutionally it is not.
But let’s; for arguments sake, ignore the constitution like the colonial establishment often does, and posit that Australia is prima facie administered locally.
When you read the UN General Assembly Resolutions that the Blue Water Thesis is based on (A/RES/1541/(XV))- in context of the entire resolution – you will see that even without the presence of blue, salty water between the colonised and the coloniser; this resolution does not at all limit the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to decolonise.
It limits the obligation that the administering state has in transmitting information on the territory to the C-24 committee.
It doesn’t stop Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from requesting assistance in their decolonisation, or affect their right to self-determination as peoples under alien subjugation.
Even if Australia is prima facie locally administered, the Blue Water Thesis does not limit our rights to decolonise at all! It only means that Australia does not have an obligation to report the status of the Australian territory to the C-24 committee on decolonisation.
We are still be able to REQUEST that we be put on the C-24 list and be afforded assistance from the International community.
The full resolution click here
The part of the text that matters:
ANNEX
PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD GUIDE MEMBERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT AN OBLIGATION EXISTS TO TRANSMIT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR IN ARTICLE 73 E OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
A/RES/1541/(XV)