<p>Even after colonial legal doctrines are formally rejected, their underlying structures of meaning often persist as “legal survivals.” This article argues that these survivals cause the failure of legal pluralism not only at an institutional level but also at an interpretive one. The core problem is that the signs through which Indigenous peoples express their legal systems—their land relations, jurisdiction, and authority—are not permitted to signify as law within state-based legal frameworks. Drawing on legal semiotics and postcolonial jurisprudence, the analysis combines semiotic theory with a comparative legal analysis of Australia, Canada, and Norway to trace how each nation has confronted the legacy of colonial legal frameworks that erase Indigenous sovereignty. The analysis reveals three divergent semiotic trajectories: Australia’s revolutionary but fractured re-signification, Canada’s evolutionary functional adaptation of title, and Norway’s semiotic reversal. This regression is exemplified by the 2024 Karasjok decision of the Norwegian Supreme Court, which reactivates a colonial sign system described here as the “doctrine of insignificant presence”. By examining how legal meaning is constructed and denied through signs, this article demonstrates that meaningful legal transformation depends not only on new rules, but on developing the capacity to read and legitimize the signs of other legal orders.</p>