DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of National Laws and Policies That Support Or Undermine Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of National Laws and Policies That Support Or Undermine Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities REVIEW OF NATIONAL LAWS AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT OR UNDERMINE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES SOUTH AFRICA “Land is the foundation of the lives and cultures of Indigenous peoples all over the world… Without access to and respect for their rights over their lands, territories and natural resources, the survival of Indigenous peoples’ particular distinct cultures is threatened.” Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Report on the Sixth Session 25 May 2007 Authored by: Tracy-Lynn Humby, Ademola Oluborode Jegede, Laureen Manuel and Naana Halm. Published by: Natural Justice in South Africa Edited by: Lee Middleton and Stephanie Booker Date: December 2014 Cover Photo: The Karoo. © Stephanie Booker 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 8 PART 1: COUNTRY, COMMUNITIES & INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ RIGHTS.............................................................................. 9 1.1 COUNTRY ................................................................................................... 9 1.2 COMMUNITIES & ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE............................................. 10 1.2.1 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 1.2.2 DRIVERS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND LAND/RESOURCE APPROPRIATION...... 12 1.2.3 THREATS TO CULTURAL AND LINGUSTIC DIVERSITY…………………………………….. 13 1.2.4 INITIATIVES TO CONSERVE AND SUSTAINABLY USE BIODIVERSITY................. 14 PART 2: HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................................................................... 15 2.1 HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS AND POLICIES.......................................................... 15 2.2 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LAWS AND POLICIES........................................................................................................... 21 2.3 EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION……………………………………. 21 PART 3: LAND, FRESHWATER AND MARINE LAWS & POLICIES……………………………… 21 3.1 LEGISLATION RELEVANT TO COMMUNITY TERRITORIES, TITLE OR TENURE & SUB-SOIL RESOURCE RIGHTS……………………………………………………………………… 22 3.2 STATE AGENCY MANDATED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LAND/FRESHWATER/MARINE LAWS AND POLICIES…………… 26 3.3 RECOGNITION OF NATURE OR ABORIGIONAL TITLE…………………………………. 27 3.4 CUSTOMARY LAW &PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL STEWARDSHIP OR GOVERNANCE….…………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 PART 4: PROTECTED AREAS, ICCAS AND SACRED NATURAL SITES………………………… 28 4.1 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ CONSERVED TERRITORIES AND AREAS (ICCAS)……………………………………………………………… 28 4.1.1 THE RANGE, DIVERSITY, AND EXTENT OF ICCAS…………………….…………………….. 28 4.1.2 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF ICCAS ………………………. 28 4.1.3 MAIN THREATS TO LOCAL GOVERNANCE…………………………………………………….. 28 4.1.4 MAIN INITIATIVES UNDERTAKEN TO ADDRESS THE THREATS TO ICCAS………. 29 4.2 PROTECTED AREAS ..................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 LAWS AND POLICIES THAT CONSTITUTE THE PROTECTED AREA FRAMEWORK………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 4.2.2 DEFINITION OF PROTECTED AREA.................................................................... 29 4.2.3 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LAWS AND POLICIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 4.2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ELEMENT 2 OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS........................................................................................... 31 4.2.5 PROTECTED AREA FRAMEWORK & RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ RIGHTS …………………………………………………………… 34 4.3 SACRED NATURAL SITES............................................................................. 35 4.4 OTHER PROTECTED AREA-RELATED DESIGNATIONS.................................... 35 4.5 TRENDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 36 2 4.5.1 DIRECTION OF PROTECTED AREAS LAWS AND POLICIES....................................................................................................................... 36 PART 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL LAWS AND POLICIES..................................................................................................... 36 5.1 NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT …………………………………………………. 36 5.1.1 LAWS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES….…………………………… 36 5.1.2 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LAWS AND POLICIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 5.1.3 LOCAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP OF TERRITORIES, AREAS OR NATURAL RESOURCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………... 38 5.2 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INTANGIBLE HERITAGE AND CULTURE............ 38 5.2.1 LAWS AND POLICIES RELATING TO TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE OR COMMUNITIES’ INTANGIBLE HERITAGE OR CULTURE………………………………….. 38 5.3 ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING …………………………………………………………….... 41 5.3.1 LAWS AND POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING…….. 41 5.3.2 FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT, CONSULTATIONS AND CUSTOMARY DECISION-MAKING…………………………………………………………………. 41 5.3.3 FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS ARISING FROM ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES AND RELATED TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE………………… 41 5.3.4 STATE-IMPLEMENTED LAWS, POLICIES AND FRAMEWORKS GOVERNING PROCESSES…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42 5.3.5 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT LAWS AND MONITOR LAWS AND POLICIES……………………………………………………………………. 43 PART 6: NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION, LARGE-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE/ DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND AGRICULTURE………………………. 43 6.1 NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION……………………………. 43 6.1.1 NATURAL RESOURCES BEING EXPLORED AND EXTRACTED………………………….. 43 6.1.2 LAWS AND POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION ………………………………………………………………... 44 6.1.3 INTERACTION BETWEEN NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION LAWS ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION ………………..……………. 44 6.1.4 NATURAL RESOURCES EXTRACTION LAWS AND OTHER LEGISLATION………….. 45 6.1.5 THE IMPACT OF NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION ON OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46 6.1.6 NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION LAWS: RELATIONSHIP TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’…………………………………….. 47 6.1.7 NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION IMPACTS ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES …………………………………….. 49 6.1.8 CONFLICTS WITH DOMESTIC PROPERTY LAWS GOVERNING LAND FORMALLY OWNED …………………………………………………………………………………… 51 6.1.9 FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT, CONSULTATIONS, CUSTOMARY DECISION-MAKING, AND THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARING OF COSTS 52 AND BENEFITS ARISING FROM RESOURCE EXTRACTION………………………………. 6.1.10 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR LAWS AND POLICIES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 6.2 LARGE-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE/DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ……………………. 53 3 6.2.1 LARGE-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES’………………………………………………………………………… 53 6.2.2 STATE AGENCIES MANDATED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR LAWS AND POLICIES ……………………………………………………………………………………. 55 6.2.3 LAWS AND POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND / OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ……………….………........ 56 6.2.4 INFRASTRUCTURE LAWS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ENVIRONMENT AND/OR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES……………………………………… 56 6.3 LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE ……………………………………………………………………. 57 6.3.1 LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH AFRICA …………………………………………… 57 6.3.2 IMPACT OF LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE ON OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES... 58 6.3.3 LAWS AND POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE………….. 58 6.3.4 LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE LAWS AND POLICIES, THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS…………..………………………………………………………………………………. 59 6.3.5 INTERACTION OF LAWS AND POLICIES WITH OTHER LEGISLATION SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL & HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS…………..……………………………………. 60 6.3.6 EFFECTS OF LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES ………………………………………………………………………………… 62 PART 7: NON-LEGAL RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT................................................ 63 7.1 NON-LEGAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT.............................................................. 63 7.2 NON-LEGAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT ................................................ 66 7.3 KEY ISSUES........................................................................................................ 67 PART 8: JUDGMENTS.............................................................................................. 68 8.1 CASE LAW AND JUDGEMENTS THAT SUPPORT OR HINDER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ RIGHTS ………………………………………………. 68 PART 9: IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................... 71 PART 10: RESISTANCE AND ENGAGEMENT…………………………………………………………... 75 10.1 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ ENGAGEMENT WITH OR RESISTANCE OF LAWS AND POLICIES……………………......................................... 73 10.2 TYPES OF DISPUTES THAT HAVE EMERGED..………………………………………………… 73 10.3 BROAD SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND TRENDS…………………………………………………. 74 10.4 RESPONSE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES’ TO LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AFFECT THEM.................................................................. 75 PART 11: LEGAL AND POLICY REFORM..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Individual Aboriginal Rights
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 9 2004 Individual Aboriginal Rights John W. Ragsdale Jr. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John W. Ragsdale Jr., Individual Aboriginal Rights, 9 MICH. J. RACE & L. 323 (2004). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL RIGHTS John W RagsdaleJr.* INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 323 I. THE DEVELOPING CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL R IGHTS ............................................................. 331 A. The Western Shoshone Experience Prior to the Indian Claims Commission Act ............................................ 331 B. The Indian Claims Commission Proceedings .................... 336 C. The Dann Litigation and the Establishment of Individual A boriginal R ights .................................................... 341 II. CONTOURS OF THE DOCTRINE ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 71 (2015) Article 5 Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Aboriginal Title and Private Property." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 71. (2015). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows* Q: What did Indigenous Peoples call this land before Europeans arrived? A: “OURS.”1 I. INTRODUCTION In the ground-breaking case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia2 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.3 It held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation possess constitutionally protected rights to certain lands in central British Columbia.4 In drawing this conclusion the Tsilhqot’in secured a declaration of “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land”.5 These are wide-ranging rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Thoughts on Aboriginal Title
    SOME THOUGHTS ON ABORIGINAL TITLE Brian Slattery* Introduction Justice Ivan Cleveland Rand, for whom this lecture is named, served as a judge in the Supreme Court of Canada for some sixteen years, between 1943 and 1959. During that period, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down only three reported decisions relating to the rights of aboriginal peoples.1 In two of these cases, Justice Rand delivered separate opinions.2 Some passages that appear there are worth pondering. In the St. Ann’s Island Shooting and Fishing Club case,3 decided in 1950, Justice Rand stated with respect to a provision of the Indian Act:4 The language of the statute embodies the accepted view that these aborigines are, in effect, wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation. For that reason, every such dealing with their privileges must bear the imprint of Governmental approval... Six years later, in the case of Francis v. The Queen,5 Justice Rand remarked with respect to a clause favouring Indians in the Jay Treaty of 1794: Appreciating fully the obligation of good faith toward these wards of the state [i.e. the Indians], there can be no doubt that the conditions constituting the raison d ’etre of the clause were and have been considered such as would in foreseeable time disappear.... Whether, then, the time of its expiration has been reached or not it is not here necessary to decide; it is sufficient to say that there is no legislation now in force implementing the stipulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges (Tks) in Climate
    Fall 08 ` September 2014 Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives Version 1.0 – September 2014 Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW) http://climatetkw.wordpress.com Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives The information presented in this report is believed to be current as of the time of production. The document is a work in progress. The workgroup anticipates revising it over time. Version 1.0 September 2014 These Guidelines have been developed by a group of indigenous persons, staff of indigenous governments and organizations, and experts with experience working with issues concerning traditional knowledges. Workgroup Participants (in alphabetical order): Karletta Chief, University of Arizona Ann Marie Chischilly, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Commission Mike Durglo, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Preston Hardison, Tulalip Tribes Joe Hostler, Yurok Tribe Kathy Lynn, University of Oregon Gary Morishima, Quinault Management Center Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council Jim St. Arnold, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Carson Viles, University of Oregon and Tulalip Tribes Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation Kyle Powys Whyte, Michigan State University Daniel Wildcat, Haskell Indian Nations University Sue Wotkyns, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Federal partners involved with reviewing and commenting on this document: Monique Fordham, US Geological Survey Frank Kanawha Lake, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Funding support for workgroup participant’s time includes: Individual tribal governments, North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Suggested Citation: Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW). 2014. Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Indigenous Peoples: Assessing the Progress Since Durban
    Conservation and Indigenous Peoples: Assessing the Progress since Durban Interim Report: discussion draft September 2008 A contribution to the World Conservation Congress, October 2008 FPP series on Forest Peoples and Protected Areas Conservation and Indigenous Peoples : Assessing the Progress since Durban By Marcus Colchester, Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, John Nelson, Chris Kidd, Peninnah Zaninka, Messe Venant, Len Regpala, Grace T Balawag, Borromeo Motin, Banie Lasimbang. This review draws on the first four of several country-level studies being carried out as part of a project coordinated by the Forest Peoples Programme with the Fundacion para la Promocion del Conocimiento Indigena and Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact. These studies are: Chris Kidd and Penninah Zaninka, 2008, Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Conservation: A review of south-west Uganda. Messe Venant with John Nelson, 2008, Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Conservation: Reviewing and promoting progress in Cameroon. PACOS Trust, 2008, Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Conservation: Reviewing and Promoting Progress in Sabah, Malaysia. TebTebba Foundation, 2008, Philippines Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: Review of Policy and Implementation. Thanks are due to Caroline de Jong, Helen Leake, Anna Paraiyar and Ruth Jansen for contributions to this interim report. We are grateful to Gonzalo Oviedo of IUCN for furnishing weblinks and documentation. We also thank all those who agreed to be interviewed as part of this review process. We are grateful to the Ford Foundation for supporting this research. All the reports from this project are also available on FPP’s website: www.forestpeoples.org © Forest Peoples Programme, September 2008 The Forest Peoples Programme is a company limited by guarantee (England & Wales) Reg.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title As a Constitutionally Protected Property Right Kent Mcneil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected]
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2000 Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Recommended Citation McNeil, Kent. "Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right." Lippert, Owen, ed. Beyond the Nass Valley: National Implications of the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw Decision. Vancouver, BC: The rF aser Institute, 2000. p. 55-75. ISBN: 0889752060 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title as a Constitutionally Protected Property Right KENT MCNEIL Delgamuukw v. British Columbia' is undoubtedly one of the most impor­ tant decisions the Supreme Court of Canada has ever handed down. It will have a continuing, long-term impact on the Aboriginal peoples' re­ lationships with the federal and provincial governments, as well as on the constitutional division of powers in this country.2 While there are many aspects of the decision that require analysis and discussion, this paper's focus is on the definition of Aboriginal title provided by the Court. In particular, I am going to discuss the status of Aboriginal title, ~~<::~~~ a pr?Ee ~ty_ rig~~1 J2.u~ - ~1E.?. ~ ~:__ a_~!E.£~~!!!.i9 n_ally}.ro f£.~t~I£I£Eitj right. This wi1f'involve looking at the central position of property, espe- Cially real property, in the common law.
    [Show full text]
  • PFII Side Events – First Week, April 24-28
    PFII Side Events – First Week, April 24-28 Session Room Event Organiser(s) MONDAY 24 APRIL 13:15-14:30 CR4 Effective and Meaningful Participation in the United Nations Voluntary UNPFII Fund for Indigenous Peoples and DOCIP 1 FF * Crimean Tatars in 2017: Keeping the Dream Mejlis of Crimean Tatar Amartya Alive People Sen FF*Rio Our Way Forward: A Cross-Movement MADRE & Rosa Luxemburg Dialogue to Defend and Advance Our Rights Stifting-NYC CR9 People of the Land and HIV Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network (CAAN) CR6 UN Voluntary for Indigenous Peoples; Permanent Mission of Finland Increasing indigenous peoples’ impact at the UN Voluntary for Indigenous UN for over 30 years Peoples CR8 Screening of 43 minute documentary film on California Western School of Mapuche Traditional Knowledge in Chile (EN) Law 16:30-18:00 CRB Empowerment of the Indigenous Women in Kalinga Institute of Social Odisha: A Case Study of Kalinga Institute of Sciences Social Sciences 18:15-20:00 CR4 Violence Against Indigenous Women and Girls Canada, Mexico, United States TUESDAY 25 APRIL 13:15-14:30 CR4 Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and International Indigenous 1* ​ FF: FF building, 304 E 45th St. PFII Side Events – First Week, April 24-28 Biodiversity Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre and Indigenous Women Network on Biodiversity (IWNB). CRB Implementing the UN Declaration on the Assembly of First Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Opportunities in Canada FF*6th UNDRIP @ 10:
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada
    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 39 Issue Article 5 January 2014 The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada Guy Charlton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Guy Charlton, The Law of Native American Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Outside of Reservation Boundaries in the United States and Canada, 39 Can.-U.S. L.J. 69 (2015) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol39/iss/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE LAW OF NATIVE AMERICAN HUNTING, FISHING AND GATHERING RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF RESERVATION BOUNDARIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Guy Charlton* ABSTRACT: This article examines and compares the law of Native American/Aboriginal hunting, fishing and gathering rights in those areas which are located outside of reserved land area in Canada and the United States. The article argues that despite the differing statutory and constitutional traditions, both states’ law and policy towards the Native American continues to reflect the underlying premises of the colonial project. While indigenous peoples have significant use rights, national, state and provincial power remains the primary locus of regulatory authority. However, there may be opportunities to extend use and co-management rights to allow tribes to be involved in land use and environmental regulatory decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title Reconsidered Nell Jessup Newton Notre Dame Law School, [email protected]
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1980 At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered Nell Jessup Newton Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Nell J. Newton, At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered, 31 HASTINGS L.J. 1215 (1980). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1199 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered By NELL JESSUP NEWTON* In 1947, Professor Felix Cohen, then Associate Solicitor for the United States Department of the Interior and a recognized scholar in American Indian law, wrote that despite what "[e]very American schoolboy is taught . the historic fact is that practically all of the real estate acquired by the United States since 1776 was purchased not from Napoleon or any other emperor or czar but from its original In- dian owners."' Only eight years later, Justice Reed, writing for the ma- jority of the United States Supreme Court in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States,2 asserted a ontrary view: "Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded mil- lions of acres by treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Metamorphosis of Aboriginal Title
    THE METAMORPHOSIS OF ABORIGINAL TITLE Brian Slattery* Aboriginal title has undergone a significant transformation from the colonial era to the present day. In colonial times, aboriginal title was governed by Principles of Recognition based on ancient relations between the Crown and Indigenous American peoples. With the passage of time, this historical right has evolved into a generative right, governed by Principles of Reconciliation. As a generative right, aboriginal title exists in a dynamic but latent form, which is capable of partial articulation by the courts but whose full implementation requires agreement between the Indigenous party and the Crown. The courts have the power to recognize the core elements of a generative right — sufficient to provide the foundation for negotiations and to ensure that the Indigenous party enjoys a significant portion of its rights pending final agreement. However, the courts are not in a position to give a detailed and exhaustive account of a generative right in all its facets. This result can be achieved only by negotiations between the parties. Le titre autochtone a considérablement évolué depuis l’époque coloniale. À cette époque, le titre autochtone était régi par les principes de reconnaissance de la common law sur la base des anciennes relations entre la Couronne et les peuples autochtones américains. Au fil des ans, ce droit historique est devenu un droit héréditaire régi par les principes de réconciliation. En tant que droit héréditaire, le titre autochtone existe sous une forme dynamique mais latente, que les tribunaux peuvent formuler partiellement, mais dont la définition valide doit faire l’objet d’une entente entre la partie autochtone et la Couronne.
    [Show full text]
  • The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title
    THE POST-DELGAMUUKW NATURE AND CONTENT OF ABORIGINAL TITLE Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School Toronto May, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. The Source of Aboriginal Title 3 2. The Proprietary Status of Aboriginal Title 10 3. The Content of Aboriginal Title 14 4. The Inherent Limit on Aboriginal Title 21 5. The Communal Nature of Aboriginal Title 30 6. The Inalienability of Aboriginal Title 38 Conclusions 48 1 Introduction In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia,1 the Supreme Court of Canada finally addressed the issue of the nature and content of Aboriginal title head on, after dancing around the matter for many years.2 While not deciding whether the Gitksan (also spelled Gitxsan) and Wet'suwet'en Nations who brought the case to court actually have title to the lands they claim,3 the Court did provide a definition of Aboriginal title to guide trial courts and negotiators as they grapple with the issue.4 This definition contains a number of elements: 1. the source of Aboriginal title; 2. the proprietary status of Aboriginal title; 3. the content of Aboriginal title; 4. the inherent limit on Aboriginal title; 1 [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010. 2 The Court did address this issue to some extent in earlier decisions, notably Calder v. Attorney- General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313 (hereinafter Calder), and Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 (hereinafter Guerin). See also St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.) (hereinafter St. Catherine's); Canadian Pacific Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • The Growing Importance of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge
    Chapter 1 Introduction: The Growing Importance of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge Ronald L. Trosper and John A. Parrotta Abstract The knowledge, innovations, and practices of local and indigenous communities have supported their forest-based livelihoods for countless generations. The role of traditional knowledge—and the bio-cultural diversity it sustains—is increasingly recognized as important by decision makers, conservation and develop- ment organizations, and the scientifi c community. However, there has long existed a lack of understanding of, and an uneasy relationship between, the beliefs and practices of traditional communities and those of formal forest science. This mutual incompre- hension has a number of unfortunate consequences, both for human societies and our planet’s forests and woodlands, which play out both on solid ground in many parts of the world as well as in international policy arenas. In this chapter, we defi ne traditional forest-related knowledge, and explore the relationships between traditional knowledge systems and scientifi c approaches. We follow with an overview of the scope and central questions to be addressed in subsequent chapters of the book, and then provide an overview of international and intergovernmental policy processes that affect traditional knowledge and its practitioners. Finally, we introduce some of the major international programmes and research initiatives that focus on traditional forest-related knowledge and its applications for sustaining livelihoods in local and indigenous communities in a world struggling to deal with environmental, cultural, social, and economic change. Keywords Biocultural diversity • Forest policy • Forest management • Indigenous peoples • Knowledge systems • Sustainability • Traditional communities • Traditional knowledge • United Nations R. L.
    [Show full text]