Irene Watson, through the fable of the Giant Frog, has on one hand, given an

extensive account of the Indigenous Jurisprudence and at the same time, highlighted the
damage caused to indigenous population by colonial interpretation of sovereignty. The
preceding paragraphs will discuss the parable of the Giant Frog, bringing out the key
characteristics of the Indigenous Jurisprudence and the metaphorical references to colonial
violence.

The parable recounts that there was a Giant Frog who drank up all the water, thereby
leaving nothing for the other animals. The other animals were parched and decided to find a
solution to satisfy their thirst. The animals came to the decision that the appropriate recourse
would be to make the Giant Frog laugh which will make the Giant Frog to release all the
water. Once they were successful in their plan, the animals realised that this was only a
temporary solution since as long as the Giant Frog was there, it could always consume all the
water again. To prevent this, the animals came to the conclusion that they need to break up
the Giant Frog into smaller frogs so that the water can be shared equally among all living
beings.

In the above story, the “Giant Frog” is the metaphorical representation of the
colonisers who got settled in Australia and started dominating the land and other resources in
a systematic and calculative manner. The smaller animals represent the aboriginal population
of Australia (the Nungas), who were living peacefully together before the arrival of the
“Giant Frog”. The arrival of the “Giant Frog”, that is, the colonisers disrupted the peace by
imposing their conception of sovereignty as opposed to the law of ruwi. The Nungas law was
ancient and uncodified, which was all-embracing and believed in living one with the nature.
However, the colonisers viewed Nungas law to be uncivilized and annihilated the same by
imposing the Western laws and culture through use of force and violence. In the parable, the
Giant Frog drinking up all the water signifies the colonisers exploiting the natural resources
that belonged to all for their own greed and thirst for power.

These colonisers justified their acts of violence and repression by relying on the
principle of terra nullius. In international law and politics, the term terra nullius means “the
land belonging to no-one” or “territory without a master”. 1 Over the years, the European
colonisers have used this principle to occupy lands and territories, until 1975 when the
International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion completely rejected

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terra_nullius#:~:text=Terra%20nullius%20is%20a%20term,is%20not
1

%20owned%20by%20anyone.
the principle of terra nullius as a justification for colonization of territories. 2 In case of
Australia, even the modern Australian land laws were based on terra nullius, thereby denying
the land rights of Nungas, which was ultimately abolished in the case of Mabo v.
Queensland.3

The parable concludes with the Giant Frog breaking into smaller frogs, representing
that disillusionment of the Giant Frog who thinks that it can overpower the law of ruwi. The
Giant Frog has forgotten that it is like all other animals and that it is also the part of the
nature.4 The law of ruwi will remain, regardless of the Giant frog’s dismissal and the law
would ensure that all living beings share equally the bounties of nature.

2
Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J. 12.
3
http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2009-06-03.2122539038/file
4
Id.