Unsettling Expectations: (Un)certainty, Settler States of Feeling, Law, and Decolonization1

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (02) ◽  
pp. 235-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Mackey
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Business Development ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Land Policies ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive State ◽  
Indigenous Land

AbstractGuaranteeing “certainty” (for governments, business development, society, etc.) is often the goal of state land rights settlements with Indigenous peoples in Canada. Certainty is also often seen as an unequivocally desirable and positive state of affairs. This paper explores how certainty and uncertainty intersect with the challenges of decolonization in North America. I explore how settler certainty and entitlement to Indigenous land has been constructed in past colonial and current national laws, land policies, and ideologies. Then, drawing on data from fieldwork among activists against land rights, I argue that their deep anger about their uncertainty regarding land and their futures helps to reveal how certainty and entitlement underpin “settler states of feeling” (Rifkin). If one persistent characteristic of settler colonialism is settler certainty and entitlement, then decolonization, both for settlers and for jurisprudence, may therefore mean embracing uncertainty. I conclude by discussing the relationship between certainty, uncertainty, and decolonization.

Indigenous Planning: From Forced Assimilation to Self-determination

2021 ◽  
pp. 088541222110266
Author(s):  
Michael Hibbard
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Indigenous Cultures ◽  
Indigenous Planning ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Land

Interest in Indigenous planning has blossomed in recent years, particularly as it relates to the Indigenous response to settler colonialism. Driven by land and resource hunger, settler states strove to extinguish Indigenous land rights and ultimately to destroy Indigenous cultures. However, Indigenous peoples have persisted. This article draws on the literature to examine the resistance of Indigenous peoples to settler colonialism, their resilience, and the resurgence of Indigenous planning as a vehicle for Indigenous peoples to determine their own fate and to enact their own conceptions of self-determination and self-governance.

Intolerance toward Native American Religions

2020 ◽  
pp. 125-146
Author(s):  
John Corrigan ◽  
Lynn S. Neal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
North America ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Religious Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Native American Religions

Settler colonialism was imbued with intolerance towards Indigenous peoples. In colonial North America brutal military force was applied to the subjection and conversion of Native Americans to Christianity. In the United States, that offense continued, joined with condemnations of Indian religious practice as savagery, or as no religion at all. The violence was legitimated by appeals to Christian scripture in which genocide was commanded by God. Forced conversion to Christianity and the outlawing of Native religious practices were central aspects of white intolerance.

scholarly journals Indigenous Title and its Contextual Economic Implications: Lessons for International Law From Canada’s Tsilhqot’in Decision

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 215-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight Newman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Indigenous Land

International law on the rights of Indigenous peoples has developed rapidly in recent decades. In the latest phase of this development, international instruments on the rights of Indigenous peoples have increasingly offered universalized statements. However, the reality remains that the implementation of Indigenous rights must take place in particular circumstances in particular states. The form of domestic implementation of Indigenous rights may or may not connect closely to international law statements on these rights, and there may be good reasons for that. This essay takes up a particular example of Indigenous land rights and a significant recent development on land rights in the Supreme Court of Canada.

scholarly journals Diamond Mining in Denendeh: Colonial Natural Resource Extraction and Indigenous Peoples in Canada’s Northwest Territories

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
Julia Werkman
Keyword(s):  
Northwest Territories ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Reciprocal Relationships ◽  
Natural Resource Extraction ◽  
Diamond Mining ◽  
National Economies ◽  
Colonial Frontier ◽  
Indigenous Land

Diamond mining is a rapidly developing industry, with an immensely large presence in Canada's Northwest Territories (NWT) with two currently functioning mines. Since the opening of the first mine in NWT in 1998, the Canadian federal government has viewed diamond production as 'essential' to both the territorial and national economies, frequently highlighting the benefits of diamond production. Entrenched in colonial language, the very existence of diamond mines in operation within NWT violate teachings, values, and the time honoured reciprocal relationships with the land held by Indigenous peoples across the territory. In problematizing this relationship, this paper employs the theories of Glen Coulthard's work For the Land: The Dene Nation's Struggle for Self- Determination, and examines the ways in which the operation of diamond mines exist as strongholds of settler-colonialism while simultaneously seeking to 'modernise' Canada's North. This is achieved through an exploration of Indigenous land relationships, the false beneficiary nature of diamond mine corporations, and finally the homeland vs. colonial frontier dichotomy.

Indigenous Land Disputes and Law Reform in India: Lessons for Malaysia

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Izawati Wook
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Land Disputes ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Forest Lands ◽  
Indigenous Land

Disputes on indigenous land rights are a continuing issue in Malaysia which needs to be addressed. Apart from the common law recognition of the land rights of the indigenous peoples, they are increasingly and widely recognised, both, under national and international laws as a stakeholder in the natural resources located within their areas. Since 1992, there has been a dramatic increase in legislation around the world recognising the rights of indigenous peoples and communities to forest lands and resources. An interesting law reform exercise has taken place in India with the introduction of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) to address the claim of the indigenous peoples to forest resources. India is relevant as a comparison to Malaysia as both share some common political and legal features. Using a comparative approach, this article analyses processes and mechanisms adopted in the relevant law reform in India and its relevance to Malaysia. Comparative perspectives provide models for practical applications of indigenous peoples’ rights. These will assist policy analysis through learning from the successes and failures of other jurisdictions in improving legal reform. This article provides a new perspective in addressing the issue of land disputes involving the indigenous peoples in Malaysia which is significant to the policy and law reform on this issue. 

Recognition of Indigenous Land Rights in Norway and Canada

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øyvind Ravna ◽  
Nigel Bankes
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Aboriginal Title ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Land

Many states offer constitutional protection to the traditional lands of indigenous peoples. International treaties protecting ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples also require protection of the rights of indigenous communities with respect to traditional territories. States have followed different routes in identifying the ownership and resource rights of indigenous communities. In Norway, the Courts have traditionally applied the rules on prescription and immemorial usage, developed through centuries in the farming societies of Scandinavia. The legislature has chosen to follow the same approach in the Finnmark area of Norway under the terms of the Finnmark Act (2005). By contrast, in Canada, a settled colony with an English common law tradition, the Courts have developed a sui generis approach to the recognition of Aboriginal title. This article examines the rules for identifying and legally recognising the traditional lands of indigenous people in Norway and Canada with a view to reflecting on similarities and differences.

Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 769-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Dick
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
Indigenous Resistance ◽  
University Of Toronto ◽  
Aboriginal Title ◽  
Push And Pull

Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism, Peter H. Russell, Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. xii, 470.Peter Russell's insightful book on Aboriginal land rights in Australia weaves together two tales, that of Indigenous crusader Eddie Koiki Mabo and the slow and arduous struggle of Torres Strait Islanders and mainland Aborigines to have their native land rights recognized by Australian governments in the hope of forging a new, post-colonial relationship. Along the way, Russell places these stories in the context of the push and pull of international events and movements that affected Australia's domestic politics and assesses the political progress of Indigenous peoples in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-154
Author(s):  
Lucas Lixinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Indigenous Land

On November 25, 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) held that the state of Suriname had violated the rights of two indigenous groups by denying recognition of their juridical personality and their entitlement to collective property and judicial protection. In Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, the Court also considered the impact of nature reserves on indigenous land rights, as well as the legitimacy of private titling of property that encroaches on land for which collective title has not been attained. The decision pushes the Court's previous jurisprudence significantly—and somewhat controversially—by asserting that under the American Convention on Human Rights, indigenous peoples are entitled, as collective entities, to recognition of their legal personality. In so doing, the Court challenged ordinary assumptions about the individualized character of most adjudication regarding international human rights and made the possibility of enforcing collective rights more palpable.

scholarly journals The Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Revaluation of Papua Special Autonomy

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Eddy Pelupessy
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Communal Land ◽  
National Legal System ◽  
Forest Law ◽  
Customary Rights ◽  
Mining Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Indigenous Land

The purpose of Special Autonomy for Papua is to resolve the source of the problem in Papua, especially concerning the rights of indigenous peoples. Normatively, the background of local autonomy for Papua is affirmed in Act No. 21 of 2001 on Papua Special Autonomy. The results shows that the recognition and protection of the land rights of indigenous peoples have been set clearly in the national legal system, such as Agrarian Law, Forest Law, as well as in Mineral and Coal Mining Law. However, recognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights to land in various legal products is still ambivalent. The essence of protection of indigenous peoples’ rights to land is also clearly regulated in Act No. 21 of 2001 and Perdasus No. 23 of 2008 has put customary law community on ownership of communal land is not the object of development, especially in the field of investment. The customary right and indigenous land which is the property and become an authority on indigenous peoples must be recognized by the government and regional and national communities about its presence. Therefore, the government should strive to protect the customary right through regulation of the Ministry of Agrarian and Land Agency and other laws related to the issue of customary rights, customary lands, indigenous peoples and their authority.

scholarly journals Brazilian Amazon gold: indigenous land rights under risk

Elem Sci Anth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Villén-Pérez ◽  
Paulo Moutinho ◽  
Caroline Corrêa Nóbrega ◽  
Paulo De Marco
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Health ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Mining Operations ◽  
Indigenous Lands ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Land

Brazilian indigenous lands prevent the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest while protecting the land rights of indigenous peoples. However, they are at risk because they overlap with large areas of registered interest for mining. Indigenous lands have been in the spotlight of the pro-development wing of the parliament for decades, and the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, promised that he would open up these territories for exploitation. Recently, bill PL191/2020 was released to downgrade the protection status of indigenous lands by regulating mining activities in these territories. Mining operations have an unavoidable socio-environmental impact on indigenous communities that is difficult to compensate. First, rapid demographic growth associated with the incoming migrant workforce often causes social disruption and threat indigenous societies. Moreover, sustained pollution related to mining procedures and accidental spills largely degrade the environment and imperil indigenous health. Finally, mining operations drive deforestation both within and beyond their operational boundaries. Mining is already an essential determinant of forest loss in the Amazon, where further deforestation may result in extended droughts with significant social and economic consequences. We conclude that, if mining operations were allowed in Brazilian indigenous lands, indigenous peoples would be imperiled along with regional and global climate and economies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document