Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2021, Anthropologica
Anthropologica 62 (2020) 308–312 I would like to thank the authors for their valuable contributions to this special issue, as well as Sylvie Poirier and Clint Westman for inviting me to write these concluding remarks. The articles, taken together, offer much valuable insight on the troubled state of relations between Canada and those Indigenous Peoples, who are in the process of or have completed negotiations on what are known as land claims, both in the regions discussed here, and in Canada more generally. In fine, the contributions show that one party, Canada, uses its power to ensure that the results conform to its objectives and not those of the less powerful Indigenous parties. That is, when looked at from governments’ central objectives, so-called negotiations are largely a sham. For, rhetoric notwithstanding, final agreements must always conform to their preconditions: in this, the rule is that might makes right. In this regard, I am sorry to say that things have not changed ...
Canadian Indigenous Treaties; An Eye on the Past A step to the Future. A draft
Canadian Indigenous Treaties An Eye on the Past A step to the Future A draft2022 •
This is a draft for a Research Proposal: Introduction and Background to Topic/ Problem Indigenous Peoples "IP" exists in more than 90 countries, and they represent about 5% of the global population. The IP has been, for long, and till recent times, subject to undenied historical injustice. IP rights is a topic that received much recognition on all levels, international, regional, and national levels; however, there are a lot of promises and minor achievements in reality. The IP was subject to physical assaults for long, which elevates in many cases to genocides. However, the physical assault was one phase only of the violation of IP rights. In addition to the physical assaults, there were continuous assaults on their land and culture, the two factors which are the backbone of Indigenous existence. For many IP, the loss of land equals the loss of culture (Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/indigenous-peoples/). Indigenous activists name the extended violation of IP rights in land and culture "Cultural Genocide." In recent decades, many states have been trying to achieve progress in the file of IP rights. Canada is one of the most modern states that took practical steps to address Canadian IP rights. Those efforts took several shapes and were crowned by signing treaties between the Canadian government (CG) and some Canadian IP (CIP). These treaties present an excellent path for reconciliation between both parties in the Canadian context. However, the Canadian Indigenous Activists (CIA) have different stands toward these treaties. While some CIA considers the treaties a step toward retaining IP rights, others consider these treaties a new phase of "Cultural Genocide" (Simpson, 2017, Kingston, 2015). This research aims to answer the following questions: 1- What are Indigenous activists' stand(s) towards the treaties signed between the Canadian government and Indigenous tribes? 2- How could future treaties better respond to the conserves of the activists and advocates that reject those treaties?
The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien
Land claim and treaty negotiations in British Columbia, Canada: Implications for First Nations land and self-governance2014 •
2020 •
In contemporary Public International Law, the term ‘treaties’ has a precise meaning: it means “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law”. Therefore, some may think that contemporary sovereign states understand the legal concept of a treaty is different from the historical context in which the Indigenous People of Canada negotiated those constitutive rights with the British Crown. In Canada, there are several different treaties with Indigenous Peoples regarding different sorts of rights. The case of the treaties with the First Nations of Canada is a matter of searching for fairness. In the transition from colonial North America to modern Canada, the full meaning of the treaties with the Indigenous Nations was at least subverted. This statement is not a moral judgment; it is a legal as well as political issue ipso facto.
Canadian Journal of Political Science
Negotiating Aboriginal Self-Government Agreements in Canada: An Analysis of the Inuvialuit Experience2015 •
In 1973, the federal government of Canada invited Aboriginal groups to enter into comprehensive land claims negotiations to settle outstanding claims not addressed by historical treaties. After eight years of negotiations, the Inuvialuit became the second group in Canada to sign a modern treaty, doing so in 1984. Missing from that agreement, however, was a self-government chapter, which was not open to negotiation at that time. In 1996, the Inuvialuit initiated self-government negotiations with the Crown but have yet to conclude an agreement despite increased institutional capacity. What explains this puzzle? Drawing upon the existing literature on land claims negotiations, Aboriginal self-government and historical institutionalism, we analyze a variety of primary and secondary sources to argue that a number of institutional and non-institutional factors have prevented the Inuvialuit from successfully completing self-government negotiations with the Crown.
1983 •
This paper was prepared for the “Land Rights Symposium” held by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), in Canberra, May 21-22. 1980. I want to thank the AIATSIS for funding to enable me travel to the Northern Territory of Australia after the conference. Nicolas Peterson generously arranged, with others, for me to visit a range of Aboriginal communities and organizations, to attend land claims hearings, and to meet with participants from all the involved parties. The paper was initially published in 1980 in the Canadian Journal of Anthropology, 1 (2):159-172. The version included on this site was modestly revised for publication in the Symposium volume. I want to acknowledge and thank Peter W. Hutchins for his valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.
Göttingen Journal of International Law, Vol. 5(1)
We Will Remain Idle No More: The Shortcomings of Canada's 'Duty to Consult' Indigenous PeoplesBill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, and Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, both passed in 2012, contain numerous amendments that could affect established and potential Aboriginal rights across Canada. This unilateral action by the Government of Canada came as a great surprise to many Aboriginal people, who indicated that they were not consulted in advance of the legislation’s introduction. However, this then begs the question: What is Canada’s ‘duty to consult’? What is the content of this ‘duty’? Does this ‘duty’ even exist? If it does, is there a discrepancy between the established ‘duty to consult’ and the legislative amendments included in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45? The purpose of this article is to attempt to answer all of these questions. To do this, we will begin by examining contemporary Canadian jurisprudence on the issue, including reviewing the relevant case law in order to gain an insight into the procedural substance of the ‘duty to consult’. Following this, in an attempt to enrich and deepen the discussion concerning the recent developments in Canada, we will outline the emergence of consultation norms at the international level, and highlight recent jurisprudence that takes into consideration consultation duties at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The article will conclude by juxtaposing the emergence of the international and regional norms regarding consultation duties with current events in Canada, in order to confirm the discrepancy between the recent legislative amendments and domestic jurisprudence, international law, international human rights law, and regional human rights law. Our hope is that this article will not only inform readers of current events in Canada but also enrich the current discourse on the participatory rights of indigenous peoples in the context of land and natural resource development.
Canadian Journal of Political Science-revue Canadienne De Science Politique
Explaining Aboriginal Treaty Negotiations Outcomes in Canada: The Cases of the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador2007 •
Abstract. In 1977, the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador each submitted statements of intent to begin treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial governments under the federal comprehensive land claims process. On 22 January 2005, the Inuit, the federal government, and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador signed the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. The Innu, on the other hand, are nowhere near to completing their agreement. This paper seeks to explain why the Inuit were able to complete their agreement, whereas the Innu were not. It challenges the conventional explanation that an economic development project is a necessary condition for completing a treaty by arguing that a number of internal and external factors need to be taken into account. Résumé. En 1977, les Inuits ainsi que les Innus du Labrador ont respectivement annoncé leur intention de lancer des négociations en vue de conclure un traité avec les gouvernements fédéral et provincial en vertu du processus des recendications territoriales globales. Le 22 janvier 2005, les Inuits, le gouvernement fédéral et la province de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador ont conclu l'Accord sur les revendications territoriales des Inuit du Labrador. Les Innus, de leur côté, sont encore loin d'une entente. Cet article cherche à expliquer pourquoi les Inuits ont pu signer un accord alors que les Innus n'y sont pas parvenus. L'article remet en question l'explication souvent avancée voulant qu'un projet de développement économique soit une condition nécessaire à l'achèvement d'une entente et soutient plutôt qu'un ensemble de facteurs intérieurs et extérieurs doivent être pris en compte.
Извори српског права IV, Одељење друштвених наука САНУ, Музеј СПЦ, ур. Коста Чавошки и Владимир Радовановић / Sources of Serbian Law IV, SASA, Department of Social Sciences, Museum of the SOC, eds. Kosta Čavoški and Vladimir Radovanović, Belgrade
Законик цара Стефана Душана, књига 6 / The Code of Emperor Stefan Dušan, Vol. 6 / Codex Imperatori Stephani Dušan, Volumen VI2023 •
Journal of Urban Archaeology
The Sechín Alto Complex in the Pre-Hispanic Central Andes2023 •
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association
Feminism and Cultural Studies1991 •
Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez
RESEÑA Silvia Berrica Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 54/1, 20242024 •
2021 •
2014 •
2018 •
Journal of Green Building
Life Cycle Analysis of the Deconstruction of Military Barracks: Ft. McClellan, Anniston, AL2006 •
Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Management, Business, Applied Science, Engineering and Sustainability Development, ICMASES 2019, 9-10 February 2019, Malang, Indonesia
The 21st Century Capacity Development Strategy in the Subject of Motorcycle Chasis Maintenance at State Vocational High School (VHS)-1 of Gombong Kebumen2020 •