THE LAW-SPACETIME-JUSTICE NEXUS: INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL CLAIMS Michelle Katherine Braiden Department of Geography McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada November 2019 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography © Michelle Katherine Braiden 2019 ABSTRACT This dissertation analyzes international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and indigenous territorial claims from the perspective of legal geography, a field of study that investigates the mutually constitutive relationship between law, space and power in society. I use the term “international law-spacetime-justice nexus” to signify that the analysis is concerned with the spatiotemporal foundations of international law and their relationship with concepts of international political justice. The dissertation analyzes matters pertaining to the spatial and structural (in)justices associated with the international legal principle of uti possidetis, a doctrine that holds that decolonizing or seceding states are entitled to retain the boundaries of the previous colonial or state power. The concept of spatiotemporalities is used to analyze questions about how the ICJ produces and reproduces the spatial hierarchies and structural injustices associated with colonial legalism in contemporary contexts. The dissertation also examines the theoretical foundations of indigenous self-determination and self-government as articulated in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). It counters the statist spatial paradigm of traditional international border disputes by examining indigenous territorial claims based on historical entitlement, remedial claims such as corrective justice and treaty violations, as well as non-remedial claims based on cultural integrity arguments. These themes are explored in three case studies, including the 1992 boundary dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, the 1994 dispute case between Libya and Chad, and the 1995 response by the Grand Council of Cree of northern Quebec and James Bay to the Quebec government’s proposals for separation. ii RÉSUMÉ Ce mémoire étudie le droit international, la Cour Internationale de Justice (CIJ) et les revendications territoriales indigènes envisagées sous l'angle de la géographie légale, un champ d'études qui explore les relations entre la loi, l'espace et le pouvoir dans la société. J'utilise le terme "nexus international loi-espace temps-justice" pour signifier que l'analyse se concentre sur les fondations spatiotemporelles du droit international et leurs relations avec les concepts de justice politique internationale. Le mémoire étudie les questions des (in)justices spatiales et structurelles liées au principe légal international du uti possidetis, une doctrine qui affirme que les états décolonisés ou en sécession ont le droit de garder les frontières de l'état colonial qui précédait. Le concept de spatiotemporalités est utilisé pour analyser la manière dont la CIJ produit et reproduit les hiérarchies spatiales et les injustices structurelles liées au colonialisme juridique à l'époque contemporaine. Le mémoire examine aussi les fondations théoriques de l'auto-détermination et de l'auto-gouvernement indigène tels qu'ils sont définis dans le texte United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) (Déclaration des Nations- Unies sur les droits des peuples indigènes). Il s'oppose au paradigme spatial étatique des conflits de frontières traditionnels, en examinant les revendications territoriales indigènes basées sur les droits historiques, les mesures de réparation telles que la justice correctrice et les violations des traités, et aussi les revendications non liées aux réparations mais basées sur les arguments d'intégrité culturelle. Ces thèmes sont explorés dans trois études de cas, notamment le conflit de frontière de 1992 entre le Salvador et le Honduras, le conflit de 1994 entre la Lybie et le Tchad, et la réponse de 1995 du Grand Conseil des Cris du Québec du Nord et de James Bay aux propositions du gouvernement du Québec pour une séparation. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is dedicated to my grandparents, Bert Braiden and Edna (Hall) Braiden. I would like to thank my friends and family in Montreal, Buenos Aires, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria for their love, support and especially their patience. I would also like to thank my colleagues at Dawson College in Montreal, Quebec for their encouragement over the past few years. I am especially grateful that I had such a wonderful advisor, Professor Ben Forest. I would like to thank Professor Catherine Lu and Professor Jon Unruh for reading earlier versions of my dissertation. I would also like to thank my examiners, Professors Christina Scholz, George Wenzel, and Daniel Béland for their comments and criticisms. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. ii RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER ONE: INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL CLAIMS .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Legal geography: Transforming the ‘law-space-power nexus’ ................................................... 14 1.4 Context: International law and the doctrine of uti possidetis .................................................... 16 1.5 Methods and methodologies: Case studies .............................................................................. 20 1.6 Organization of the Argument ................................................................................................. 23 1.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 27 CHAPTER TWO: TRANSFORMING LEGAL GEOGRAPHY........................................................... 29 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 29 2.2 Theoretical framework: Legal geography ................................................................................. 31 2.2.1 Critical geography and the spatialities of state territory ............................................................................ 36 2.2.2 Traditional and critical border and boundary studies ................................................................................ 38 2.3 Time and temporalities: Transforming the law-space-power nexus .......................................... 41 2.3.1 Latin America, uti possidetis, and the critical date of independence ........................................................ 42 2.3.2 The scramble for Africa, African decolonization, and the principle of stability ......................................... 45 2.4 The International Court of Justice, structural injustice, and colonial legalism ............................ 48 2.4.1 Intertemporal law, precedent and temporal inertia .................................................................................. 53 2.5 Spatial justice, historical and structural injustice ...................................................................... 55 2.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 58 CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL CLAIMS ......... 60 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 60 3.2 Historical entitlement arguments for indigenous territorial claims ........................................... 61 3.2.1 Time immemorial ........................................................................................................................................ 63 3.3 Remedial claims: Corrective justice and treaty violations ......................................................... 66 3.3.1 Corrective justice......................................................................................................................................... 68 3.3.2 Treaties and treaty violations ..................................................................................................................... 70 3.4 Nonremedial territorial claims: Cultural integrity arguments .................................................... 75 3.5 UNDRIP: Self-determination and self-government ................................................................... 77 v 3.5.1 UNDRIP Articles: Land, territory and borders ............................................................................................ 79 3.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 83 CHAPTER