Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples:
Advancing Global Understandings of Self-Determination
by Sheryl R. Lightfoot (University of British Columbia) and
David MacDonald (University of Guelph)
Abstract
Nation-states around the world tend to view Indigenous nations’ claims for sovereignty and
self-determination in zero-sum terms, fearing that any advancement in Indigenous peoples’
self-determination means a loss of sovereignty or territorial integrity for nation-states. This
article aims to shed light on how Indigenous political actors in several countries are advancing
self-determination in practice with, within, and across the borders of individual states, while
navigating the international system, in assertive, maximal, innovative, and peaceful ways that
do not result in a loss of nation-state sovereignty or territorial integrity. Some Indigenous
peoples are entering into treaty or partnership agreements with other Indigenous groups,
in conjunction with state institutions, or completely outside state purview. We examine
several cases of such treaty relations and draw some conclusions about how these types
of Indigenous-to-Indigenous treaty relations are enhancing and advancing Indigenous selfdetermination.
Keywords: Indigenous peoples, Indigenous politics, self-determination, treaties, state
sovereignty, colonization, Indigenous rights, UNDRIP, plural sovereignty
Settler state governments have long claimed
absolute political sovereignty over Indigenous
lands, institutions, and peoples – claims that
have always been subject to contestation and
resistance by Indigenous peoples. Further,
nation-states tend to view claims for sovereignty
and self-determination by Indigenous peoples in
zero-sum terms, fearing that any advancement in
Indigenous peoples’ self-determination means a
loss of sovereignty or territorial integrity for
nation-states. Settler states have so jealously
guarded sovereignty and self-determination
as their exclusive domain that they have even
self-proclaimed a right of exclusivity in relations
with Indigenous peoples (who are relegated to
the domestic sphere), creating and maintaining
policy structures that have legally confined and,
in practice, attempted to constrain Indigenous
nations so that they conduct their external relations only with and through state institutions.
However, Indigenous peoples resist this colonial
impulse for control in multiple ways and, in doing
so, are driving shifts in global understandings of
self-determination.
As Sheryl Lightfoot (2016) has argued, the
2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (“the UN Declaration”), a global consensus statement of Indigenous peoples’ rights
drafted by both states and Indigenous political
actors, has shifted global understandings of selfdetermination toward new constructions. All
of the old colonial doctrines that justified state
domination over Indigenous lands and resources
and the subjugation of Indigenous peoples, such
as the Doctrine of Discovery, plenary power, and
terra nullius, have been technically delegitimized
New Diversities vol. 19, No. 2, 2017
ISSN ISSN-Print 2199-8108 ▪ ISSN-Internet 2199-8116
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
in the international sphere, and Indigenous
peoples are recognized as enjoying the right of
self-determination equal to all other peoples on
Earth. However, the new terms and meaning of
Indigenous peoples’ self-determination is not so
clear. While the UN Declaration states, in Article
3, “Indigenous peoples have the right to selfdetermination,” it also contains Article 46 which
states: “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group
or person any right to engage in any activity or
to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the
United Nations or construed as authorizing or
encouraging any action which would dismember
or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.” In other words, Indigenous peoples
have a right to self-determination, but not necessarily a right to secede from states or the right to
declare their independence as states. Since the
UN decolonization era began in the 1960s, “selfdetermination” has been largely understood as
the right to independence as a state, and the
UN Declaration is clearly pointing toward some
new understanding of self-determination that
does not equate to Westphalian interpretations
of state sovereignty, and a decoupling of sovereignty from self-determination (Lightfoot 2016).
Indigenous peoples, in many respects, are
leading the way toward a future global imaging
of self-determination that will likely involve sovereignties and other forms of political relations
that may be plural and multiple, and are often
rooted in the age-old practice of treaty making. Both the global Indigenous rights discourse
and the political practices of some Indigenous
peoples around the world are, together, altering these old state-centric and zero-sum patterns of Indigenous-state relations and toward
a set of political relations that is far more plural and multiple in terms of sovereignties. The
global challenge, that Indigenous peoples are
helping address, is to re-think and re-imagine
how self-determination can be practiced without an exclusive reliance on state structures
(Lightfoot 2016).
26
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
While the incommensurability of settler state
sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination is
widely argued (Tuck and Yang 2012; Barker and
Batwell-Lowman 2016; Simpson 2016; Coulthard
and Simpson 2016), Indigenous peoples, in some
cases around the world, are pushing for important practical changes that allow states to peacefully and more justly co-exist with Indigenous
nations. In recent decades, Indigenous political
actors in several countries have been advancing self-determination in practice through treaty
relations with, within, and across the borders of
individual states. In doing so, they are exercising their self-determination in assertive, maximal, innovative, and peaceful ways that do not
threaten nation-state sovereignty or result in a
loss of state territorial integrity but are stretching the limits of how state sovereignty has been
previously understood.
Some Indigenous peoples around the world
are entering into treaty or partnership agreements with other Indigenous peoples, in conjunction with state institutions, or completely outside
state purview. Normally, international relations
consider treaties as the exclusive domain of sovereign states. The vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties (1969) defines a “treaty” as “an international agreement concluded between States in
written form and governed by international law,
whether embodied in a single instrument or in
two or more related instruments and whatever
its particular designation” (Art. 2.1a). However,
Indigenous treaty making has always, since time
immemorial, involved more and deeper relations than simply an agreement between states
or even merely between political entities. Rather,
it has embodied the depth and richness of Indigenous relationship making, which have always
included responsibilities not only to other political bodies but also to non-human entities such
as animals, the environment and the spirit world.
Some Indigenous peoples in the contemporary
period are drawing on and reinvigorating their
own traditional treaty practices in ways that create multiple possibilities for the conventional
understanding of “treaty.” For example, Heidi
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark (2017) has articulated
how treaties existed well before colonization,
in webs of relationships with all creation, those
“pre-existing relationships and responsibilities
across Anishinaabe aki (the Earth) that were
impacted by these agreements.” By re-creating
and re-defining treaty making for their own purposes, in their own way, and on their own terms,
these Indigenous peoples are actively asserting
their self-determination in ways that advance its
construction well beyond a territorially bounded
nation state.
After first examining the concept of Indigenous
self-determination and its place in the international human rights discourse, this article will
examine several cases of such treaty relations
and attempt to draw some conclusions about
how these types of Indigenous-to-Indigenous
treaty relations are enhancing and advancing
Indigenous self-determination as well as leading
a global conversation on the possibilities for plural and multiple sovereignties. The three cases to
be examined here are:
Case 1: Indigenous nations along the Canada-US
border have signed the 2014 Iinnii (Buffalo) Treaty.
Case 2: Indigenous nations signed a treaty in September 2016, to jointly fight pipelines
that carry Canadian Tar Sands oil.
Case 3: The International Indian Treaty Council
has held annual Indigenous nation treaty
conferences without state participation
since 1974.
These cases share some salient commonalities
and differences. Each explores Indigenous treaties and governance agreements that exist both
within states and across state borders. Cases 1
and 2 are located in North America, while Case
3 initially began as a Western Hemisphere initiative but quickly expanded to a global effort. All
cases occur in the context of advanced Western
liberal democracies, emerging in regions with a
long-documented tradition of historical treaty
making. All of the cases have roots in Indigenous
activism that is both resistant to colonialism and
simultaneously aimed at building new institu-
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
tions and structures. Case 1 also explores human
to non-human treaties, a subtext which implicitly runs through the other cases as well, as many
Indigenous peoples see the land and animals as
parts of their responsibilities as human beings.
The cases also demonstrate how traditional
and evolving Indigenous models of diplomacy
and treaty can help counter the many negative
effects of absolute state sovereignty. Throughout,
we also note similarities between Indigenous
knowledge and the evolving area of posthumanist thought in the social sciences, which reflects
some aspects of what we discuss here.
Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination
Existing scholarly debates in the Indigenous rights,
politics, and law literatures focus attention on
whether Indigenous rights, as articulated in the
UN Declaration are an advancement in Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination (Burger
2011; Daes 2011; Stavenhagen 2011; Thornberry
2011), or if they constitute a form of assimilation and domestication (Corntassel 2008). Some
critical Indigenous scholars have even argued
that the rights discourse itself forms a politics of
recognition that subjugates Indigenous peoples
to the nation-state, obliging them to practice
politics only in ways recognized as legitimate by
the settler state (Alfred 2005; Coulthard 2014).
In the case of the Yukon, for example, Nadasdy
has observed that gaining self-government has
entailed tradeoffs for Indigenous peoples, such
that: “Land claim and self-government agreements are not simply formalizing jurisdictional
boundaries among pre-existing First Nation polities; they are mechanisms for creating the legal
and administrative systems that bring those polities into being” (Nadasdy 2012: 503).
While some activist and scholarly voices hold
that the UN Declaration recognizes an Indigenous legal right to self-determination equal
to all other peoples, with parallels to the 1960
UN Decolonization Declaration (Carmen 2012;
Deer 2011), others critique the UN Declaration
for diminishing self-determination rights within
a colonial matrix of settler state power (Watson
27
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
2011). A third path views the UN Declaration’s
articulation of self-determination as a unique
and relational form (Anaya 2009; Lightfoot 2016),
requiring ongoing negotiation. International
fora, such as the UN Permanent Forum, have
long been useful to Indigenous peoples working
across state boundaries (Lightfoot 2016), while
domestically, organizations such as the Iwi Chairs
Forum in Aotearoa-New Zealand and the Assembly of First Nations and provincial counterparts
in Canada have promoted forms of self-determination on behalf of their members. Norway,
Finland, and Sweden have institutionalized Indigenous legislatures that serve as consultative bodies to the national parliaments (Broderstad 2011;
Kuokkanen 2011, 2012).
Some Indigenous peoples exercise self-determination in ways that resemble the external
sovereignty of states: issuing and travelling on
their own passports (Kuprecht 2013), conducting trade and diplomatic missions (Beier 2009;
Kuprect 2013; Macklem and Sanderson 2016),
engaging in international trade (Drahos and
Frankel 2012; O’Sullivan 2007), as well as negotiating and entering into treaty-like agreements
with other Indigenous peoples (Beier 2009;
Henderson 2008; Lightfoot 2016). So, while the
UN Declaration seems to offer a novel view of
Indigenous self-determination, it may also foreground new and evolving global understandings
of the term, decoupling it from sovereignty and
territoriality (Lightfoot 2010; Quane 2011), with
salient practical implications that move beyond
Indigenous peoples to impact wider issues of
global governance, a phenomenon that has been
inadequately explored in International Relations
(Beier 2009, Keal 2003, Tickner 2015).
Self-determination is a common area of theoretical work in Indigenous Studies (Alfred, 2005;
Anaya, 2009, 2000; Corntassel, 2008; Coulthard,
2014; Koukkanen, 2011, 2012; Simpson, 2014;
Simpson 2011), yet is often considered either
as cultural/linguistic/spiritual resurgence or in
terms of relations between IPs and the state
(Deloria and Wilkins, 1999; Lerma, 2014). Few
theoretical or empirical examinations explore
28
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
political self-determination that operates independently of domestic Indigenous-state relationships or beyond the state. Yet, Indigenous peoples engaged in treaty relations with one another
and with non-human entities long before contact
with colonizers and generally welcomed such
forms of political relations with early explorers
and settlers. So, in many respects, it is entirely
natural to expect Indigenous people to continue
to relate to one another utilizing treaty making.
However, with colonial relations dominating over
time, it has become natural to think of Indigenous
peoples relating only in and through states and
their structures. For the past several hundred
years, Indigenous treaty making has been solely
understood as directed at and through states.
This colonial pattern is changing. In recent years,
Indigenous peoples around the world have been
taking back their old traditions of treaty making as an innovative Indigenous form of political
relations that pushes the boundaries of what, for
many years, has typically been considered “international relations.” We illustrate this trend with
three contemporary cases, and then offer some
conclusions.
The Iinnii (Buffalo) Treaty
The peoples of the Northern Plains of North
America have used treaty as their primary form
of political relations since time immemorial. For
thousands of years prior to European contact, the
Blackfoot, Cree and Dakota peoples, among others, used intertribal treaties to form agreements
and alliances amongst themselves. Traditionally,
these groups also often extended the practice
of treaty making to include non-human animals,
including and especially, the buffalo, who sometimes were seen, Hubbard (2014) recalls, “much
like a benevolent grandparent” (294).
Initially, treaties were also the preferred form
of European relations with Indigenous peoples of
North America. As early as 1613, Dutch settlers
formed an enduring treaty with the Haudenosaunee peoples of the Eastern Great Lakes and
St. Lawrence River valley, known as the “Two
Row Wampum” treaty. This treaty, depicted on
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
the wampum belt as two parallel blue lines on
a white background, intended that the two peoples would co-exist like two parallel rivers, each
one independently navigating its own way, without disturbing or disrupting the other. As Wilson
(2000) wrote, “This wampum belt confirms our
words. […] Neither of us will make compulsory
laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the
other. Neither of us will try to steer the other’s
vessel.” (115-116). British colonial policy was
also based on treaty making, usually in the form
of military alliance which either sought aid or
neutrality from tribes or their friendship and
peace. For many years, treaty making was satisfactory practice for both Indigenous nations and
the colonizers (Leslie & Macguire, 1979).
In the meantime, ancient intertribal practices
of treaty making continued, especially in the West
and the Great Plains until the second half of the
19th century. The Lame Bull Treaty of 1855, which
established a large common hunting ground, was
one of the last of the Northern Plains intertribal
treaties to be signed, prior to the colonizers’
demand in the late 19th century that all Indigenous peoples’ external relations be only with the
colonizing state (American Bison Society, 2014).
Coincident in time, settlers slaughtered buffalo in
great numbers, and the once great wild buffalo
herds disappeared completely from these lands
by the early 20th century. Indigenous peoples of
the Great Plains were pushed onto reserves, and
forced to alter their ways of life, which had previously and traditionally revolved around both the
buffalo and treaty making. For more than a century, Indigenous peoples lived with the reserve
system and largely (though never fully) accommodated state demands for exclusivity in external relations. The few buffalo that survived the
19th century slaughter remained in captivity. But,
in the late 20th and early 21st century, Indigenous
peoples’ resistance re-emerged on both sides
of the Canada-US border, centered on the twin
goals of political self-determination and cultural
resurgence. Both intertribal treaty making practices and relations with the buffalo needed to
return.
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
On September 23, 2014, representatives from
eleven tribes/First Nations in the United States
and Canada signed the “Northern Tribes Buffalo
Treaty” in Blackfoot territory in Browning, Montana. The first intertribal treaty to be signed on
the Great Plains in over 150 years, this treaty
was intended to establish an alliance for cooperation among the various reserves to restore
the buffalo on tribal or co-managed lands. The
signatories included the Blackfeet Nation, the
Blood Tribe, Siksika Nation, Piikani Nation, the
Assiniboine and Gros ventre Tribes of the Fort
Belknap Indian Reservation, the Assiniboine and
Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
the Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian Reservation, and
the Tsuu T’ina Nation. Collectively, these groups
own and manage about 6.3 million acres of prairie and grasslands in the United States and Canada. As reported by the American Bison Society
(2014), “their goal is to achieve ecological restoration of the buffalo on their respective lands,
and in so doing to re-affirm and strengthen ties
that formed the basis for traditions thousands of
years old.”
Leroy Little Bear of the Blood Tribe in Alberta
and Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge, describes this treaty process as a lengthy
one. Buffalo dialogues, he said, were held among
elders in Blood territory over the course of about
six or seven years. After about seven years of
discussion, the elders declared that they were
now of one mind and they wanted the buffalo
to come back. But, they also realized that this
task, to bring free roaming buffalo back to their
lands, was an enormous one, and they needed
others to help. The elders suggested a treaty,
saying that we used to make treaties not only
between ourselves but also between us humans
and with other animals. The elders also said that
the Blackfoot have had a treaty with the buffalo.
But now, Little Bear said, the elders declared that
we need a treaty to bring our people together
so that we can have a place for the buffalo once
again. According to Little Bear, who played a
major role in the Iinnii (Buffalo) Initiative to
29
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
ensure that the elders’ vision for treaty became
reality,
Having humans fit themselves into the ecological
balance (is) fundamental to the life-ways of Indian
peoples. But the buffalo is a major player in this
ecological scenario. The near extinction of the buffalo left a major gap. The treaty on buffalo restoration aims to begin to fill that gap and once again
partner with the buffalo to bring about cultural
and ecological balance” (Alexander 2014).
The 2014 treaty, titled The Buffalo: A Treaty of
Cooperation, Renewal and Restoration, opens
with an acknowledgement of this ancient relationship with buffalo. It reads,
Since time immemorial, hundreds of generations
of the first peoples of the FIRST NATIONS of North
America have come and gone since before and after the melting of the glaciers that covered North
America. For all those generations, BUFFALO has
been our relative. BUFFALO is part of us and WE
are part of BUFFALO culturally, materially, and spiritually. Our on-going relationship is so close and co
embodied in us that Buffalo is the essence of our
holistic ecocultural life-ways.
They treaty was designed to be enduring and
open to new partnerships and supporters. Article vII states that others are invited to join and
form partnership with the signatories to make
the objectives of the treaty a reality. In August
2015, the first anniversary gathering of the Buffalo Treaty took place, this time in Banff, Alberta,
to welcome additional signatories to the treaty:
the Stoney Nakoda Chiniki Nation, Bearspaw
Nation, the Wesley Nation and the Samson Cree
Nation. Noting that the treaty aims to restore
multiple relationships that existed when buffalo roamed freely throughout their territories,
new signatory, Chief Ernest Wesley of the Wesley First Nation (Stoney Nakoda) told the CBC
(2015), “For me, it’s historic. We’ve become
brothers again with the buffalo.” In 2016, at the
30th annual Treaty 4 gathering, Indigenous leaders from 10 more First Nations signed the treaty:
Sakimay, Star Blanket, Okanese, Ocean Man,
Ochapowace, Peepeekisis, Yellow Quill, Pheasant
Rump, Wuskwi Sipihk and Sapotaweyak (Radford
2016).
30
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
Buffalo restoration efforts as a result of the
treaty began on January 29, 2017, when Cree
and Blackfoot leaders gathered to bless buffalo
journeying on their way from Elk Island National
Park to roam freely in Banff National Park. Wesley First Nation Band Councillor Hank Snow told
Windspeaker reporter Shari Narine (2017) that
he believes it is the first time in many generations that the Blackfoot Confederacy has come
together with the Samson Cree Nation to do ceremony. The ceremony, he said, allows a connection with the buffalo and that both First Nations
people and the buffalo are together freeing
themselves from 150 years of imprisonment
under colonization. (Narine 2016).
While the physical and cultural restoration of
the buffalo is underway, the multiple political
motives and results of the Buffalo Treaty are also
apparent. Leroy Little Bear sees the treaty as a
new expression of Indigenous sovereignty based
on old practices of Indigenous self-determination and political relations. He said,
The whole notion of sovereignty is really a matter
of degree. And a phasing-in to greater and greater
autonomy, a greater and greater amount of selfdecision making. It’s kind of like we’re taking on
more of our own decision making, and that’s what
everybody on both sides of the border are talking
about. (Radford 2016.)
In this scenario, the rigid borders of states are
more permeable, allowing buffalo a degree of
mobility which they have not had for over a century.
tar sands treaty Alliance
Another inter-Indigenous treaty was born about
the same time, also in Western North America.
On April 10, 2015, a number of Indigenous leaders, representatives and activists from grassroots
organizations across Canada held a meeting, a
day ahead of a large climate march in Quebec
City. This group of leaders and activists wanted
to strategize about how to deal with climate
change, which disproportionately impacts Indigenous communities since they are often located
in areas hardest hit by such things as rising ocean
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
levels and wildfires. The consensus of this group
was that, in North America, one of the biggest
environmental threats is the Tar Sands of Alberta,
and the group members all aimed to halt the
expansion of Tar Sands production and distribution.
Also in 2015, representatives from the Yinka
Dene Alliance of central British Columbia began
an awareness campaign. Dubbed the “West
meets East” tour, this group spent a month visiting First Nations communities along the Energy
East pipeline route to discuss with them how
community activism resulted in the earlier “Save
the Fraser Declaration” that helped beat a similar
project by banning a pipeline under Indigenous
Law. Later that same year, in September, the alliance grew when the Union of British Columbia
Indian Chiefs invited Grand Chief Serge Simon
of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake, Grand
Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and Chief Arnold Gardner of Eagle
Lake First Nation to address their 47th annual
Chiefs-in Assembly. These Indigenous leaders
all expressed a similar frustration – that while
“Indigenous peoples have contributed the least
to climate change, they stand to lose the most”
(Treaty Alliance 2015). Citing Tar Sands expansion as the largest contributor to Canada’s rise
in greenhouse gas emissions, they all stood committed to fight new expansion of Tar Sands production and distribution.1
Momentum grew over the next year, and
on September 22, 2016, a new continent-wide
Indigenous treaty, the Treaty Alliance Against Tar
Sands Expansion, was signed on Musqueam territory in vancouver. Fifty First Nations and Tribes
from across Canada and the United States signed
the treaty committing themselves to “working
together to stop all proposed tar sands pipeline,
tanker and rail projects in their respective territorial lands and waters.” A press release from
the group, issued on September 22, 2016, cites
five specific pipeline and tanker project propos1
Background on the Treaty Alliance in this section is
drawn from the group’s website: treatyalliance.org.
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
als that the group collectively opposes: Kinder
Morgan, Energy East, Line 3, Northern Gateway
and Keystone XL. The document also lists some
rail projects associated with distribution of tar
sands oil.
Since this is a treaty, meaning it can only be
signed by nations, signatories can include only
First Nations on the Canadian side and Tribes on
the US side of the border. Other organizations,
groups, companies, unions and so forth are welcome to sign the Solidarity Accord in support
of the Treaty Alliance, if they wish. By November 2016, when the Canadian government
announced approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Treaty Alliance held another ceremonial
signing of new members. It had grown to over
100 signatories and numerous supporting groups
(Treaty Alliance 2016a). By July 2017, another
ceremonial signing included the Great Sioux
Nation, Ponca Nation and Blackfoot Confederacy,
all on the US side of the border, bringing the total
Indigenous nation signatories to over 130 (Treaty
Alliance 2017). On the same day, these same
groups signed another inter-Indigenous treaty:
“The Grizzly: A Treaty of Cooperation, Cultural
Revitalization and Restoration,” which aims to
safeguard the grizzly bear and fight against the
Trump administration’s effort to delist it from the
Endangered Species Act (Treaty Alliance 2017a).
In May 2017, the group announced an integrated
divestment campaign called “Mazaska Talks”
(“mazaska” is Lakota for “money”) against the
banks funding these Tar Sands pipeline projects
(Treaty Alliance 2017b).
The Tar Sands Treaty reveals three principles
that illustrate how contemporary Indigenous
treaty making is creating novel visions of selfdetermination. First, the Treaty invokes Indigenous law and ancient treaty making practices
as its foundation. Second, Indigenous stewardship of the Earth motivates unified action and
provides Indigenous leadership for what might
otherwise be framed as a non-Indigenous-led
environmental movement. Third, the Treaty
envisions and calls for a future of shared decision
making authority between Indigenous and non-
31
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
Indigenous peoples and institutions. The text of
the Treaty contains expressions of each of these
principles. It states:
Our Nations hereby join together under the present treaty to officially prohibit and to agree to collectively challenge and resist the use of our respective territories and coast in connection with the expansion of the production of the Alberta Tar Sands,
including for the transport of such expanded production, whether by pipeline, rail or tanker.
As sovereign Indigenous nations, we enter this
treaty pursuant to our inherent legal authority and
responsibility to protect our respective territories
from threats to our lands, waters, air and climate,
but we do so knowing full well that it is in the best
interest of all peoples, both Indigenous and nonIndigenous, to put a stop to the threat of Tar Sands
expansion.
We wish to work in collaboration with all peoples
and all governments in building a more equitable
and sustainable future, one that will produce
healthier and more prosperous communities
across Turtle Island and beyond, as well as preserve and protect our peoples’ way of life (emphasis added).
The Tar Sands Treaty is intended for collective
action and support against a common, transcontinental threat. “We are in a time of unprecedented unity amongst Indigenous people working together for a better future for everyone,”
noted Rueben George of the Tsleil-Wauthuth
Sacred Trust Initiative (Treaty Alliance 2016b).
Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon agreed,
stating, “What this treaty means is that from
Quebec, we will work with our First Nation allies
in BC to make sure that the Kinder Morgan pipeline does not pass and we will also work without Tribal allies in Minnesota as they take on
Enbridge’s Line 3 expansion, and we know they’ll
help us do the same against Energy East” (Treaty
Alliance 2016b).
The Treaty is based on Indigenous nationhood
and Indigenous law, based on protection of the
Earth. In fact, text of the Treaty opens with these
twin ideas. The Treaty states: “We have inhabited, protected and governed our territories
according to our respective laws and traditions
since time immemorial.” Further, the accompa-
32
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
nying Solidarity Accord also states: “We recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples
of Turtle Island to govern their territories and
uphold their sacred trust to protect their land…
(as)…Indigenous peoples have protected and
stewarded these lands for millennia.” Casey
Camp-Horinek of the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma
expressed this sentiment when his tribe signed
the Treaty in July 2017. He said, “If you don’t
think we’re nations, if you think we’re isolated
remnants of a bygone era, just watch us exercise
our sovereign right to protect our land and our
people by stopping these pipeline abominations
from threatening our water and our very future”
(Treaty Alliance 2017a).
Indigenous law has always included treaty
making among Indigenous nations as well as
between Indigenous nations and Europeans. The
Treaty text opens with this observation:
We have inhabited, protected and governed our
territories according to our respective laws and
traditions since time immemorial. Sovereign Indigenous Nations entered into solemn treaties with
European powers and their successors but Indigenous Nations have an even longer history of treaty
making amongst themselves. Many such treaties
between Indigenous nations concern peace and
friendship and the protection of Mother Earth.
Chairman Brandon Sazue of the Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe, who called together Indigenous leaders to
a treaty signing ceremony in July 2017, referred
to the Treaty Alliance as “Remaking the Sacred
Hoop,” an ancient alliance between the Great
Sioux Nation and the Blackfoot Confederacy
(Treaty Alliance 2017).
Finally, The Tar Sands Treaty expresses a vision
of “a clean and just energy future for us all”
based on collaborative decision making authority shared by Indigenous and non-Indigenous
peoples (Treaty Alliance 2016c). As expressed on
the Treaty Alliance website, “Indigenous Nations
need to also be equal partners in developing
responses and solutions to our climate crisis.
And in the course of urgently getting off fossil
fuels, it will be critical to ensure that no one is
left behind” (Treaty Alliance, 2015). In fact, the
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
Treaty Alliance demonstrates how Indigenous
peoples are working collectively to shift decision making processes from a strictly hierarchical,
state-based model, that may include consultation with Indigenous peoples and others, toward
a model that is based on the principle of free,
prior and informed consent, where Indigenous
peoples aims to be included as decision making
partners in issues that impact them. As Kevin
Hart, Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief
for Manitoba, noted: “These tar sands pipeline
fights…are about protecting our Mother but will
also end up being the turning point for relations
between our Nations and state powers – the
point where we say no more” (Treaty Alliance,
2017a).
As an alternative to the existing model of
Indigenous consultation, exercised by both the
United States and Canada, the Treaty Alliance
is centered on the principle of free, prior and
informed consent, which requires not only that
Indigenous peoples be consulted about issues
and decisions that impact them but that they be
actively involved in such decision-making processes, from beginning to end. It also requires
that they consent to projects that impact them,
in contrast to consultation polices which often
provide the means for projects to proceed without the consent of the Indigenous communities
directly impacted. Such a normative shift would
have tremendous implications not only on the
need for governments to interact more collaboratively with Indigenous peoples, but the ripple
effects of such a shift may eventually broaden
and flatten the notion of self-determination
for all peoples, Indigenous and non-Indigenous
alike.
International Indian Treaty Council
Despite the surge in inter-Indigenous treaty making in Western North America in the 2010s, the
contemporary history of Indigenous treaty making can be traced back to the 1970s when the
International Indian Treaty Council was formed
at the very first treaty meeting at Standing Rock
Reservation in South Dakota in the summer of
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
1974. A year after the American Indian Movement’s 1973 occupation of/siege at Wounded
Knee (South Dakota) had ended, and its principle
leaders either jailed or defending themselves in
court, the movement for Indian civil rights set
about re-orienting and re-organizing itself.
Legal scholar, philosopher, and theologian
vine Deloria, Jr. had published, in early 1974,
his fourth book of the more than twenty he
would write in his lifetime, Behind the Trail of
Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. Drawing a direct link between the
status of American Indians in the American legal
framework and genocide, Deloria encouraged
Indigenous peoples to take up several agendas.
First, he called for a re-internationalization of
their relationship with governments. Logically, if
nations had signed “treaties” with tribes at one
time, those tribes were considered “nations” by
definition and that status could be regained. He
also encouraged American Indians to go to the
international level, again, as had been attempted
earlier, but failed, in the 1920s League of Nations.
Deloria encouraged the use that international
platform to push for a new agenda: a reinstitution of the treaty process.
Deloria’s philosophy aligned with that of Indigenous activists. In the summer of 1974, a group
of more than 5000 elders and traditional leaders representing ninety-eight Indigenous nations
from nine countries gathered at Standing Rock
Reservation in Lakota territory. These elders and
leaders decided to take their treaty issues to the
international level, especially the UN, and so
they officially founded the International Indian
Treaty Council (IITC) as their organizational vehicle. Several years later, in 1977, the IITC was the
first Indigenous organization to receive consultative status with the United Nations Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC.) In the decades since,
IITC has served as a leading organization in the
global Indigenous rights movement. It supports
grassroots Indigenous struggles for self-determination and human rights by building, organizing
and facilitating “the direct, effective participation of traditional Indigenous Peoples in local,
33
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
regional, national and international events and
gatherings addressing their concerns and survival” (IITC 2013).
Eight guiding principles of IITC have shaped
its work over more than four decades. These
range from an emphasis on traditional Indigenous values, to a preference for consensus decision making processes, gender equality, and the
recognition and support of individual, unique
Indigenous cultures in their unified movement.
Crucially important as well is guiding principle
number five: “The IITC believes that Indigenous
Peoples should speak for and represent themselves before the world community” (IITC, n.d.).
Since 1974, this has meant a treaty making process of consensus agreement among Indigenous
political actors that then proceeds in a unified way to advocate collectively on the global
level.
From the first founding Treaty Conference in
June 1974, the International Indian Treaty Council has advocated for the recognition and protection of Indigenous-state treaties and operated
on a treaty making model itself. This first Treaty
Council of 5000 delegates from 98 Indigenous
nations from across North and South America
met for eight days of discussion. A single document emerged from these deliberations: The
Declaration of Continuing Independence by the
First International Indian Treaty Council at Standing Rock Indian Country, June 1974. This declaration reflects the twin treaty making goals of
the new IITC organization. IITC would itself rely
on a treaty making model of inter-Indigenous
relations and decision making in order to advocate, on the national and international levels,
for respect for Indigenous-state treaties and a
future vision of self-determination that centers
treaty making both amongst Indigenous nations
and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
peoples.
The Preamble of the 1974 Declaration opens
with a strong charge against the United States for
its ongoing failure to honour its treaty responsibilities:
34
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
The United States of America has continually violated the independent Native Peoples of this continent by Executive action, Legislative fiat and Judicial decision. By its action, the U.S. has denied
all Native people their International Treaty rights,
Treaty lands and basic human rights of freedom
and sovereignty. This same U.S. government,
which fought to throw off the yoke of oppression
and gain its own independence, has now reversed
its role and become the oppressor of sovereign Native people.
In addition, the 1974 Declaration also calls for
active non-violent resistance, “by truth and
action.” Intentionally mimicking some language of the US Declaration of Independence to
emphasize a common human desire for freedom
from oppression, it continues: “In the course of
human events, we call upon the people of the
world to support this struggle for our sovereign
rights and our treaty rights. We pledge our assistance to all other sovereign people who seek
their own independence.”
The 1974 Declaration emphasized that the
hundreds of existing treaties between the United
States and Indigenous nations must not be abandoned or forgotten but rather, be recognized and
secured in contemporary times through a “committed and unified struggle, using every legal
and political resource.” It notes specifically how
the Constitution of the United States confirms
that international treaties are intended as the
“Supreme Law of the United States” and yet, it
blatantly ignores and violates hundreds of treaties with Indigenous nations that were to protect
the lands and sovereignty of those nations.
Organizationally, the newly formed International Indian Treaty Council was to be nongovernmental organization (NGO) with offices
in New York and Washington to interface with
national and international political organizations.
But, IITC would have a flavor not previously seen
in the NGO community, given that it was founded
on the basis of consensus decision-making
amongst many diverse Indigenous nations and
would continue to operate on this basis into the
future. It was to be a unifying force of collective
Indigenous advocacy and information dissemi-
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
nation that also respected the unique cultures,
political circumstances and treaties of each
individual Indigenous nation. As the 1974 Declaration states: “The International Indian Treaty
Council recognizes the sovereignty of all Native
Nations and will stand in unity to support our
Native and international brothers and sisters in
their respective and collective struggles concerning international treaties and agreements.”
It also declared that the IITC would open diplomatic relations with the US through the Department of State rather than the Department of
Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. This demonstrates that the original intention of the group
was to push for a new and more assertive form of
Indigenous sovereignty, specifically grounded in
practices of international diplomacy as opposed
to internal, domestic mechanisms. Finally, the
1974 Declaration articulated that the IITC would
make application to the United Nations for recognition and membership of “sovereign Native
Nations” and pledged its support to any other
Indigenous nation anywhere in the world doing
the same.
In the years since 1974, IITC has kept to these
guiding principles, even as it has expanded.
Treaty conferences are held annually in different
locations around the world and focus on emerging issues of common concern; each year, interIndigenous discussions are held and common
consensus resolutions achieved. For example,
the 40th Anniversary Treaty Conference held in
2014 in Okemah, Oklahoma, issued resolutions
on such matters as environmental toxins, women’s reproductive health, and extractive industries. The 2016 Treaty Conference in Hawai’i
focused heavily on food sovereignty (IITC 2016).
The longstanding IITC movement for Indigenous
peoples to represent themselves in the United
Nations also had a boost of activity between
2015 and 2017 when the President of the UN
General Assembly directed a group of advisors
to work on a draft resolution for enhanced Indigenous participation in the General Assembly.
(United Nations 2015)
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
Conclusions
Our review of these three cases highlights ways
in which Indigenous peoples are acting as selfdetermining political actors dealing with matters
which fall within their traditional authority such
as buffalo mobility, while in other cases like the
Tar Sands, banding together to resist environmental degradation and the spread of hazardous
resource extractive industries.
Many Indigenous peoples are exercising their
self-determination by defining for themselves
what self-determination can and should mean.
Their practices move beyond western forms of
“internal” and “external” sovereignty, taking a
more holistic form, well beyond a legal or juridical framework to also include culture, history,
and spirituality. It broadens the practice of selfdetermination to include not only relations with
other humans but also with non-human animals
and the environment, in accordance with Indigenous ontologies and lifeways. In practice, selfdetermination by Indigenous peoples also moves
beyond a discrete moment of political decision,
like a declaration of independence or a referendum, but rather, is conceptualized as part of an
ongoing set of relations and obligations—political, cultural and spiritual.
Indigenous knowledge systems, ways of governing, making treaty, and understanding the
world have recently been reflected, and sometimes appropriated, in the posthumanist turn in
some of the social sciences. If humanism positioned humans as the centre of all sentient life on
earth, the posthumanist turn is attuned to human
reliance on and interdependence with the rest of
the world. This means, following Audra Mitchell,
that posthuman approaches describe “worlds
intersected and co-constituted by various kinds
of beings: humans, other organisms, machines,
elemental forces, diverse materials – plus
hybrids, intersections and pluralities of all of
the above (and more)” (Mitchell 2017 11). Similarly, since 2015, “Anthropocene” theorists have
suggested that since everything is interrelated,
bound together by “social power,” “enmeshed”
35
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
as “guests on this planet,” we should best see
ourselves as “an array of bodies connected and
interconnected in complex ways that have little
to with nationality” (Planet Politics 2015, 2).
Unlike many forms of Indigenous knowledge,
this posthumanist turn remains human centric, and profoundly Eurocentric as well, such
that Jane Bennett, in Vibrant Matter, cites only
white European male theorists as her inspiration: “Baruch Spinoza, Friedrich Nietzsche, Henry
David Thoreau, Charles Darwin, Theodor Adorno,
Gilles Deleuze . . .” Her explicit goal is not so
much about the world as it is “motivated by a
self-interested or conative concern for human
survival and happiness,” which translates into
“greener forms of human culture and more attentive encounters between people-materialities
and thing-materialities” (Bennett 2010 viii).
For Indigenous peoples, the conception
of humans being inseparable from the world
around them and interdependent with it goes
back many millennia. Yet, as Metis scholar Zoe
Todd signally notes, European and settler theorists have been advancing Indigenous knowledge
systems as if they were European without any
mention of Indigenous peoples. This boils down
to a conceit where Indigenous thinkers are filtered through “white intermediaries” instead of
“citing and quoting Indigenous thinkers directly,
unambiguously and generously.” Indigenous
peoples, Todd writes (with sentiments we share)
must be regarded “[a]s thinkers in their own
right, not just disembodied representatives of
an amorphous Indigeneity that serves European
intellectual or political purposes, and not just as
research subjects or vaguely defined ‘collaborators’” (Todd, 2017, 7).
In this chapter, we have sought to better conceptualize how the right to self-determination is
evolving and being practiced by Indigenous peoples in new, creative and innovative ways, which
fully respect Indigenous laws, traditions, and
nation-to-nation relationships with one another
and with settler governments. We have considered three cases where we could see Indigenous
self-determination as commensurable with the
36
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
viability of existing settler states. As such these
are examples of complementary practices of selfdetermination.
They may reflect aspects of a new relationship developing between Indigenous peoples,
established state structures, and international
institutions. These practices also bring to mind
Brunyeel’s (2007) work on the “third space of
sovereignty,” spaces where Indigenous peoples,
possessed of their inherent sovereignty, do not
clearly fit with the spatial and temporal boundaries of settler states any more than those of the
settler state fit with their practices and structures
(xiv). In the past, such practices were crushed by
discriminatory settler state legislation and structural violence. This is slowly changing, as some
states mature within the international system
and show a willingness to abide by agreements
such as the UN Declaration.
references
ALEXANDER, R. 2014. “Historic Intertribal Treaty Works to Restore Bison in Western Canada,
U.S.” Huffpost. http://www.huffingtonpost.
ca/rob-alexander/alberta-montana-bisontreaty_b_5890836.html (accessed Nov. 25,
2017).
ALFRED, T. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of
Action and Freedom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
AMERICAN BISON SOCIETY. 2014. “Historic Buffalo Treaty Signed by Tribes and First Nations Along
U.S. and Canadian Border.” American Bison Society. https://programs.wcs.org/ambisonsociety/
News/American-Bison-society-News/articletype/Articleview/articleid/9496/Historic-Buffalo-Treaty-Signed-by-Tribes-and-First-NationsAlong-US-and-Canada-Border.aspx (accessed
Nov 25, 2017).
ANAYA, J.S. 2000. “Self-determination as a Collective Human Right Under Contemporary International Law.” In Operationalizing the right of
Indigenous peoples to self-determination, edited
by P. Aikio and M. Schenin. Turku: Institute for
Human Rights.
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
ANAYA, J.S. 2009. “Why There Should Not Have
to Be a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.” In International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, edited by J.S. Anaya. Chicago:
Kluwer Law & Business.
BARKER, A.J. and E. BATTELL-LOWMAN. 2016.
“The Spaces of Dangerous Freedom: Disrupting
Settler Colonialism.” In The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation: Non-Indigenous People and
the Responsibility to Engage, edited by S. Maddison, T. Clark and R. de Costa. Singapore: Springer.
BEIER, M.J. 2009. Indigenous Diplomacies. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
BENNETT, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.
BRODERSTAD, E.G. 2011. “The Promises and Challenges of Indigenous Self-determination: The
Sami Case.” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 66 (4): 893-907.
BRUNYEEL, K. The Third Space of Sovereignty: The
Postcolonial Politics of U.S.-Indigenous Relations.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
BURGER, J. 2011. “The UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples: From Advocacy
to Implementation”. In: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki,
eds., Reflections on the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
CARMEN, A. 2012. “Statement on behalf of the
International Indian Treaty Council to the UN
Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples”. Fifth Session, United Nations, Geneva.
CBC NEWS. 2015. “Historic Treaty Signed Among
10 First Nations and Tribes in Banff”. CBC News.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/
historic-treaty-signed-among-10-first-nationsand-tribes-in-banff-1.3190715. (accessed Nov.
25, 2017).
CORNTASSEL, J. 2008. “Toward sustainable selfdetermination: Rethinking the contemporary
Indigenous-rights discourse.” Alternatives 33 (1):
105-132.
COULTHARD, G.S. 2014. Red Skins, White Masks:
Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
COULTHARD, G.S. and L.B. SIMSPON. 2016.
“Grounded Normativity/Place-Based Solidarity.”
American Quarterly 68 (2): 249-255.
DAES, E. 2011. “The UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples: Background and Appraisal.” In Reflections on the UN Declaration on the
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited by S. Allen
and A. Xanthaki. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
DEER, K. 2011. “Reflections on the Development,
Adoption, and Implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” In
Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, Hope, and Action,
edited by P. Joffe, J. Hartley and J. Preston. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing.
DELORIA, v. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
DELORIA, v. and D. WILKINS. 1999. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press.
DRAHOS, P. and S. FRANKEL. 2012. Indigenous
People’s Innovation: Intellectual Property Pathways to Development. Canberra: ANU Press.
HENDERSON, S. 2008. Indigenous Diplomacy and
the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
HUBBARD, T. 2014. “Buffalo Genocide in Nineteenth-Century North America: ‘Kill, Skin, and
Sell.’” In Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North
America, edited by A. Laban, A. Woolford and
J. Benevenuto. Durham: Duke University Press.
INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL. n.d.
“Guiding Principles.” http://www.iitc.org/aboutiitc/guiding-principles/.
INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL.
2013. “IITC Brochure.” http://cdn7.iitc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IITCBrochureeNG_022813.pdf.
INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL. 2016.
“2016 Treaty Council Resolutions.” http://www.
iitc.org/2016-treaty-conference-resolutions/.
KEAL, P. 2003. European Conquest and the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral Backwardness
of International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
KUOKKANEN, R. 2011. “Self-Determination and
Indigenous Women: Whose voice is it We Hear
in the Sámi Parliament?” International Journal
on Minority and Group Rights 18 (1): 39-62.
———. 2012. “Self-Determination and Indigenous
Women’s Rights at the Intersection of International Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly
34 (1): 225-250.
KUPRECHT, K. 2013. Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural
Property Claims: Repatriation and Beyond. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
37
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
LERMA, M. 2014. Indigenous Sovereignty in the
21st century: Knowledge for the Indigenous
Spring. Miami: Florida Academic Press.
LESLIE, J. and R. MACQUIRE. 1979. “The Historical Development of the Indian Act.” Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa.
LIGHTFOOT, S. 2010. “Emerging Indigenous Rights
Norms and ‘Over-Compliance’ in New Zealand
and Canada.” Political Science 62: 84-104.
———. 2016. Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle
Revolution. New York: Routledge.
LITTLEBEAR, L. 2016. “Big Thinking and Rethinking:
Blackfoot Metaphysics ‘Waiting in the Wings.’”
Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences,
Calgary, Alberta.
MACKLEM, P. and D. SANDERSON. 2016. From
Recognition to Reconciliation: Essays on the Constitutional Entrenchment of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
MITCHELL, A. 2017. ‘Posthuman Security’: Reflections from an Open-ended Conversation. In C.
Eroukhmanoff and M. Harker, Reflections on the
Posthuman in International Relations, E-International Relations. www.e-ir.info Bristol, England.
NADASDY, P. 2012. “Boundaries among Kin: Sovereignty, the Modern Treaty Process, and the Rise
of Ethno-Territorial Nationalism among Yukon
First Nations.” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 54 (3): 499-532.
NARINE, S. 2016. “Historic Ceremony as Nations
Bless the Buffalo.” Windspeaker. http://www.
windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/
historic-ceremony-as-nations-bless-the-buffalo/. (accessed Nov. 25, 2017).
NATIONAL PARK SERvICE. 2014. “The Buffalo: A
Treaty of Cooperation, Renewal and Restoration”.
https://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/bisonbellow/docs/Treaty%20image%20(1).pdf.
O’ SULLIvAN, D. 2007. Beyond Biculturalism: The
Politics of an Indigenous Minority. Wellington:
Huia Publishers.
PLANET POLITICS: A MANIFESTO FOR THE END OF
IR. 2015. Anthony Burke, Simon Dalby, Stefanie
Fishel, Daniel Levine, and Audra Mitchell Presented at the Millennium Conference, Failure
and Denial in World Politics, London.
QUANE, H. 2011. “New Directions for Self-determination and Participatory Rights?”. In: S. Allen and
A. Xanthaki, eds., Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford:
Hart Publishing.
38
Sheryl R. Lightfoot and David MacDonald
RADFORD, E. 2016. “Buffalo Treaty Promoted at
Treaty 4 Gathering.” Treaty 4 News, http://treaty4news.com/2016/09/buffalo-treaty-promoted-at-treaty-4-gathering/.
SIMPSON, A. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political
Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Durham:
Duke University Press.
SIMPSON, L.B. 2011. Dancing on our Turtle’s Back:
Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-creation, Resurgence
and a New Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring.
———. 2016. “Indigenous Resurgence and Co-resistance.” Critical Ethnic Studies 2 (2): 19-35.
STARK, H. K. “Changing the Treaty Question: Remedying the Right(s) Relationship.” In The Right
Relationship: Reimagining the Implementation of Historical Treaties, edited by J. Borrows
and M. Coyle. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
STAvENHAGEN, R. 2011. “Making the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Work:
The Challenge Ahead.” In Reflections on the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
edited by S. Allen and A. Xanthaki. Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
THORNBERRY, P. 2011. “Integrating the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into
CERD Practice.” In Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited
by S. Allen and A. Xanthaki. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
TICKNER, J.A. 2015. “Revisiting IR in a Time of Crisis: Learning from Indigenous Knowledge.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 17 (4): 536553.
TODD, Z. 2016. “An Indigenous Feminist’s Take On
The Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ Is Just Another
Word For Colonialism,” Journal of Historical Sociology, 29 (1).
TREATY ALLIANCE. 2015. “Indigenous Leadership
is the only Solution.” http://treatyalliance.org/.
———. 2016a. “Kinder Morgan and Line 3 Will Never See the Light of Day say Over 100 First Nations
and Tribes.” http://www.treatyalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/treaty-Alliance-Pron-pipeline-approvals.pdf.
———. 2016b. “First Nations and Tribes Sign New
Treaty Joining Forces to Stop All Tar Sands Pipelines.” http://www.treatyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/tAAtse-Pr-treaty-signing-eN-FiNAL.pdf.
Treaty Relations between Indigenous Peoples
———. 2016c. “Solidarity Accord.” http://
www.treatyalliance.org /wp-content/uploads/2016/11/tAAtse-solidarityAccordeN-r03-20161101-OL.pdf.
———. 2017a. “Large assembly of Tribal Leaders
and Chiefs from United States and Canada Meet
to Officially Form New Cross-Border Alliance to
Stop Keystone XL pipeline.” http://www.treatyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/
Final-Pr-July4-signing.pdf.
———. 2017b. “Indigenous Leaders Launch New
Campaign to Defund All Four Proposed Tar Sands
Pipelines.” http://www.treatyalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/LaunchofDivestmentCampaign-EN-20170509.pdf.
NEW DIvERSITIES 19 (2), 2017
TUCK, E, and K.W. YANG. 2012. “Decolonization Is
Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization, Education &
Society 1 (1): 1-40.
UNITED NATIONS. 1969. Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
———. 2015. “Resolution Adopted by the
General Assembly on 23 December 2015.”
A/RES/70/232.
WATSON, I. 2011. “The 2007 Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous Survival – Where to From Here?” Griffith Law Review
20 (3): 507-514.
WILSON, J. 2000. The Earth Shall Weep: A History
of Native America. New York: Grove/Atlantic.
Note on the Authors
Sheryl Lightfoot is Anishinaabe, a citizen of the Lake Superior Band of Ojibwe, enrolled at
the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Baraga, Michigan. She is Canada Research Chair in
Global Indigenous Rights and Politics and associate professor in First Nations and Indigenous
Studies and the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. Her first
book, Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution, was published in 2016 by Routledge
Press in their critical international relations series. She is currently working on another book
project, The Politics of Indigenous Apologies, a multi-national comparative study of state
apologies to Indigenous peoples.
David B MacDonald is a full professor of political science, and the research leadership
chair for his college, at the University of Guelph, Canada. His research and teaching areas
include International Relations, US foreign policy, comparative Indigenous-settler relations
in English speaking settler states. He has written four books on these subjects as well as
numerous articles and book chapters, and four co-edited books amongst other works. His
work is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He has
also been a faculty member at the University of Otago and the ESCP Graduate School of
Management – Paris.
39