A Comparison of Nisga’a Self-Government and International Standards of Indigenous Self-Determination (original) (raw)
Related papers
A decade of Nisga'a self-government A positive impact, but no silver bullet
A decade of Nisga'a self-government A positive impact, but no silver bullet by Joseph Quesnel W hen Shawn Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), called for the end of the Indian Act and the dismantling of the Aboriginal Affairs 1 bureaucracy last summer, he was seen as making a bold move. His plan was short on details, but Atleo deserves credit for appealing for radical reform of First Nation governance. Most people who seriously study Aboriginal affairs agree that the paternalism inherent in the Act is both wrong and undesirable. Research from organizations such as the First Nations Tax Commission demonstrates a clear connection between the regulatory hurdles and delays imposed by the Indian Act and the sorry state of many First Nation economies. 2 The assumption that Aboriginal self-government is both necessary and desirable is widely held in academia and especially in indigenous activist circles. I share the assumption that some form of autonomy for First Nations is desirable. The end goal, however, is not self-government for its own sake, but to advance First Nations both as individuals and as a group in concrete terms. We know there is some sort of relationship between autonomy and economic improvement. The highly regarded U.S.-based Inroads 31 | FIRST NATION GOVERNANCE
Contemporary notions of what constitutes tribal self government for Indigenous Peoples in the legal systems of the nation-states Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America have their origins in philosophies and theories developed by European nation-states generally, in relation to their colonial expansion into what is now called the Americas. This thesis examines the nature of these theories, and how they have formed the basis for legal precedent and public policy in the three nation-states. A representative analysis of three contemporary issues will serve to illustrate the outcome of this legal/political history. I look at three sites. These are the British Columbia Treaty Process in Canada, the Waka Umanga legislation in New Zealand, and legal developments arising from the Indian Reorganization Act in the United States. Full sovereignty from an Indigenous Peoples worldview existed for Indigenous nations, and with it, self government. The notion of self government as a viable and contemporary public policy initiative is well grounded in law and history. It would seem that current initiatives to acknowledge this inherent right are more about preserving colonial hegemony rather then engaging in honest negotiation. Current initiatives are converging into a single public policy goal; namely the corporatisation of Indigenous Peoples legal personality and self governing capacity. What used to be distinct nation-state development now seems to be a four nation-state (CANZUS) unified plan being implemented on four different fronts. Clearly, from the legal history, self government is something fundamentally different from self-management. The advent of Legal Positivism has played a significant role in assumptions that inherent sovereignty and self government never existed under European legal systems. The framework of tribal self governance must be viewed in the context of the values of the specific People to be a true expression of an Indigenous Nation exercising self government. This fundamental distinction can be traced back to the legal history. The foundational laws regarding interactions with Indigenous Peoples were developed under theories of natural law. The contemporary state practice is conducted under positivist law, with a nod toward developing human rights standards. Only through continued advocacy for the legal recognition of inherent rights will the nation-states be challenged on their self management agenda.
"Preface" to Restoring Indigenous Self-Determination
E-International Relations Publishing, 2015
What are the sources of self-determining authority for Indigenous nations and peoples? How one responds to this question reveals competing narratives and worldviews relating to the self-determination discourse. These are some of the topics addressed in Woons’ edited volume, which also serves as an important primer on the global self-determination discourse.
Articulating self-determination in the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples
European Journal of International Law, 2001
This paper reports on the current negotiations on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, taking place under the auspices of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The draft Declaration's provision for an indigenous peoples' right of selfdetermination provides an opportunity for the world community to articulate more clearly what is meant by the right to self-determination outside traditional contexts. Part 2 of the paper describes the international legal context in which representatives of indigenous peoples make claims to self-determination, focusing on indications that a requirement of selfdetermination is representative government. Part 3 of the paper develops the view that self-determination should accordingly be considered as a conceptual composite incorporating provision for political participation, autonomy, choice of community, and negotiated self-determination. From this model of self-determination will flow political structures and measures which specifically take into account the particular identity and situations of indigenous peoples. Should negotiations progress, and the United Nations General Assembly eventually adopt a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the author considers that it would be likely to include a provision on self-determination in such terms. In this way, a provision on indigenous peoples' self-determination could make a valuable contribution to international law.
Self-Determination as Foundation to Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Developed in the 15th Century through a series of pontifical writings, the “The doctrine of discovery” helped western countries to put in place a domination system depriving indigenous peoples’ rights, most especially the rights to a land and access to their resources. That article tries to show that, it is through the self determination that indigenous people can do away with a segregationist system that has kept them into a state of alienation, defend their rights and fight against all sorts of discrimination due to the fact that they belong to a group different from the majority. However, The declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of indigenous people, it acknowledges the right to self-determination enable the indigenous people to get organized to improve their situation on political, economic, social and cultural plans and end all kinds of discrimination and oppressions wherever it is operates. The self-determination can the make it possible to obstruct the forced assimilation policy and makes cultural diversity possible as values of human dignity. The rationale behind this study was to demonstrate that it is only through auto determination that indigenous people can do away with a segregationist system that keep them in an alienation state. It enables them defend their rights and fight against all kinds of discrimination caused by their belonging to a group different from the majority.
1992
for their helpful and insightful comments, as well as to acknowledge the support of the Anthropology Committee of SSHRCC which provided research funds used in the preparation of this paper. This paper wa,; originally presented at the conference on Ethnonationalism held at the University of Toronto, December, 1990. I understand that the term Indigenous is now replacing Aboriginal as the tenn of self-designation among Indigenous nations in Canada. I also understand that the term government or governance is replacing self-government. Thus, perhaps a year from now, it might have been conventional to entitle this paper "Indigenous Government and the Construction of Canadian Constitutional Identity.
Processes of Native Nationhood: The Indigenous Politics of Self-Government
International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2015
Over the last three decades, Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) have been reclaiming self-government as an Indigenous right and practice. In the process, they have been asserting various forms of Indigenous nationhood. This article argues that this development involves a common set of activities on the part of Indigenous peoples: (1) identifying as a nation or a people (determining who the appropriate collective “self” is in self-determination and self-government); (2) organizing as a political body (not just as a corporate holder of assets); and (3) acting on behalf of Indigenous goals (asserting and exercising practical decision-making power and responsibility, even in cases where central governments deny recognition). The article compares these activities in the four countries and argues that, while contexts and circumstances differ, the Indigenous politics of self-government show striking commonalities across the fo...