scholarly journals Addressing the Challenge of Overlapping Claims in Implementing the Vancouver Island (Douglas) Treaties

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-307
Author(s):  
Brian Thom
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
Vancouver Island ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Coast Salish ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Industrial Forestry

Indigenous social and legal orders are a source for addressing the challenge of overlapping claims in exercising historic treaty rights in the territories of neighbouring non-treaty Indigenous Peoples. The Vancouver Island Treaties (also known as the Douglas Treaties) of the 1850s made commitments that signatory communities could continue to hunt on unoccupied lands and carry on their fisheries as formerly. Today, as urban, agricultural and industrial forestry have constrained where people can exercise their treaty rights locally, individuals from these nations exercise harvesting rights in “extended territories” of their neighbours. Through detailing several court cases where these treaty rights were challenged by the Crown and the texts of modern-day treaty documents, I show how Coast Salish people continue to draw on local values and legal principles to articulate their distinctive vision of territory and community, both engaging and subverting divisive “overlapping claims” discourses. Not only First Nations but the state, through the judiciary, Crown counsel and land claims negotiators, also, at times, acknowledge and recognise the principles of kin and land tenure that are the foundation for addressing the challenges of overlapping claims.

Part III Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian Constitution, B Treaties, Ch.14 Treaties as Constitutional Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grammond Sébastien
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Aboriginal Title ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter reviews the history of treaty-making with the Indigenous peoples of Canada. After an initial period of roughly equal relationships, colonial authorities increasingly used treaties as a domestic law concept aimed at securing control over Indigenous land. The practice was continued after Confederation, but there appears to be a major misunderstanding as to the terms of those treaties, in particular as to the purported extinguishment of Aboriginal title. After a 50-year hiatus, treaty-making resumed in 1975 with the signing of ‘land claims agreements’ in most of the Canadian north. These agreements not only provide for the sharing of land, they also contain detailed provisions with respect to co-management of natural resources and, in some cases, self-government. Canadian law now affords statutory and constitutional protection to treaty rights, and courts are prepared to take into account extrinsic and oral evidence in interpreting treaties.

Encountering Indigenous Law in Canada

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Thom
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Ethnographic Case Study ◽  
Coast Salish ◽  
Indigenous Law ◽  
Land Title ◽  
Legal Discourses ◽  
Indigenous Land

This chapter reflects on the work happening at the intersection of anthropology and law in Canada with respect to Indigenous peoples’ rights, title, governance, and legal orders. Indigenous legal scholars have ignited an important new engagement with Indigenous legal orders that are reshaping mainstream Canadian legal discourses. The chapter reviews how this work has profound implications for the direction of the recognition of Indigenous land title, territorial rights, and Indigenous jurisdictions. It argues that anthropologists have the opportunity to shift their engagement with Indigenous law from essentialized production of traditional cultures to ethnographically engaging with the logics and practices of Indigenous legal orders. The chapter develops a brief ethnographic case-study involving several closely related Island Hul’q’umi’num’ (Coast Salish) communities on the east coast of Vancouver Island (British Columbia) as they work to mobilize longstanding Indigenous principles and understandings of land tenure and harvest rights among themselves in a complex, state-regulated environment of shellfish harvesting. The purpose of the case-study is to highlight a path of anthropological engagement with contemporary Indigenous law, working both to appreciate the ways Indigenous and state legal orders are brought to life concurrently over time, and to reflect on the on-the-ground ways legal pluralism is experienced. The case also offers conceptual opportunities to transcend problematic state discourses of ‘overlapping claims’ and makes space for workable principles of co-existence through Indigenous legal sensibility.

scholarly journals Historical Indigenous Peoples' Land Claims: A Comparative and International Approach to the Common Law Doctrine on Indigenous Title

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
Potential Model ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Patterns Of Use ◽  
The Common

AbstractWithin common law systems a body of jurisprudence has developed according to which indigenous peoples' land rights have been recognized based upon historical patterns of use and occupancy and corresponding traditional land tenure. Looking at the emerging common law doctrine on aboriginal or native title, this article examines how legal institutions are building a theory on historical land claims through the recognition of indigenous laws deriving from prior occupation. The article analyses how the common law doctrine builds a bridge between past events and contemporary land claims. The aim of this article is to examine to what extent the common law doctrine proposes a potential model for the development of a legal theory on the issue of indigenous peoples' historical land claims. In doing so the article analyses how the common law doctrine compares with international law when dealing with historical arguments by focusing on issues of intertemporal law and extinguishment.

scholarly journals Rekonstrukcja rdzennego dziedzictwa architektonicznego

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-72
Author(s):  
Nancy Mackin
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Building Materials ◽  
Extreme Weather ◽  
Coast Salish ◽  
Emergency Shelters ◽  
The Future

Long resident peoples including Gwich’in, Inuvialuit, Copper Inuit, and Sami, Coast Salish and others have learned over countless generations of observation and experimentation to construct place-specific, biomimetic architecture. To learn more about the heritage value of long-resident peoples’ architecture, and to discover how their architecture can selectively inform adaptable architecture of the future.  we engaged Inuit and First Nations knowledge-holders and young people in reconstructing tradition-based shelters and housing. During the reconstructions, children and Elders alike expressed their enthusiasm and pride in the inventiveness and usefulness of their ancestral architectural wisdom. Several of the structures constructed during this research are still standing years later and continue to serve as emergency shelters for food harvesters. During extreme weather, the shelters contribute to a potentially widespread network of food harvester dwellings that would facilitate revitalization of traditional foodways. The reconstructions indicate that building materials, forms, assembly technologies, and other considerations from the architecture of Indigenous peoples provide a valuable heritage resource for architects of the future.

scholarly journals Achieving Certainty in Treaties with Indigenous Peoples: Small Steps Towards Adopting Elements of Recognition

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
John Helis
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Negotiated Agreements ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Indigenous Group ◽  
James Bay Cree ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government

The Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement (EMRLCA) with the James Bay Cree of northern Quebec contains a novel approach to achieving certainty in treaties with Indigenous peoples. For the federal government, the certainty of having the rights of an Indigenous nation exhaustively set out in one document is the benefit derived from treaties. Unlike Aboriginal rights, which the government views as ambiguous and hard to define, treaties are negotiated agreements that clearly outline rights. The goal of government when negotiating treaties is therefore to ensure that the Indigenous group can only exercise treaty rights and not their pre-existing Aboriginal rights which are recognized by the common law and the Constitution Act, 1982.

scholarly journals Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act and Indigenous Self-Determination in Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21
Author(s):  
Hailey Lothamer
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Canadian Government ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Personal Accounts

This research paper analyzes the impacts of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution on the enhancement of Indigenous rights in Canadian politics. As outlined in Section 35, Indigenous rights are recognized as pre-existing prior to the Constitution Act of 1982 and the identity of Aboriginal, Inuit and Métis peoples are defined. Academic literature, television broadcasts, and personal accounts of the implementation and effects of Section 35 were used to conduct this research and investigate the origins of this section in the Constitution. Notably, this analysis demonstrated that the inclusion of Section 35 in the Constitution has led to more public discussion and court cases to claim treaty rights by Indigenous peoples. The effect of including Indigenous rights in the Canadian Constitution has expanded the role of the courts in adjudicating relations between the Canadian government and Indigenous people, effectively expanding the accountability of the Canadian government to upholding treaty rights. Overall, the findings of this paper were that Section 35 plays a large role in promoting awareness of reconciliation to the Canadian public, however, it stops short of including Indigenous people as meaningful participants in their own self-determination.  

Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole J Wilson ◽  
Jody Inkster
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Indigenous Studies ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Political Ontology ◽  
Living Entity ◽  
Settler Societies

Indigenous peoples often view water as a living entity or a relative, to which they have a sacred responsibility. Such a perspective frequently conflicts with settler societies’ view of water as a “resource” that can be owned, managed, and exploited. Although rarely articulated explicitly, water conflicts are rooted in ontological differences between Indigenous and settler views of water. Furthermore, the unequal water governance landscape created by settler colonialism has perpetuated the suppression of Indigenous ways of conceptualizing water. This paper thus examines the “political ontology” of water by drawing on insights from the fields of critical Indigenous studies, post-humanism, and water governance. Additionally, we engage a case study of four Yukon First Nations (Carcross/Tagish, Kluane, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, and White River First Nations) in the Canadian North to examine their water ontologies through the lens of a politics of kinship including ideas about “respecting water.” We also examine the assumptions of settler-colonial water governance in the territory, shaped by modern land claims and self-government agreements. We close by discussing the implications of Indigenous water ontologies for alternate modes of governing water.

scholarly journals Envisioning Indigenous Community Courts to Realize Justice in Canada for First Nations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelique EagleWoman
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indigenous Community ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commission ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
Indigenous Law ◽  
United Nations Declaration ◽  
Community Courts

Recognition continues to grow both within Canada, as well as the wider worldwide community, of the unique issues facing Indigenous people within Canada’s justice system. We see this in the recent wholesale adoption by the Canadian Government of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. This article examines the potential development of a system of Indigenous community courts as a way to end colonial suppression of Indigenous self-governance. The article suggests as a model for these courts the tribal courts in the United States, as a means by which Indigenous peoples can re-instate Indigenous law and legal principles.

A Precarious Confluence: Neoliberalism, Race, and Water Insecurity

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mascarenhas
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
First Century ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
Water Insecurity ◽  
The Core ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Racial Projects ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Cities

Three very different field sites—First Nations communities in Canada, water charities in the Global South, and the US cities of Flint and Detroit, Michigan—point to the increasing precariousness of water access for historically marginalized groups, including Indigenous peoples, African Americans, and people of color around the globe. This multi-sited ethnography underscores a common theme: power and racism lie deep in the core of today’s global water crisis. These cases reveal the concrete mechanisms, strategies, and interconnections that are galvanized by the economic, political, and racial projects of neoliberalism. In this sense neoliberalism is not only downsizing democracy but also creating both the material and ideological forces for a new form of discrimination in the provision of drinking water around the globe. These cases suggest that contemporary notions of environmental and social justice will largely hinge on how we come to think about water in the twenty-first century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document