Although difficult to define, it is generally agreed that the concept of self-determination is “concerned broadly with peoples” and “grounded in the idea that all are equally entitled to control their own destinies”, whether as an individual or as a community (Anaya, 1996, p.75). Since 1945, the “self-determination of peoples” has been affirmed as a peremptory norm, or jus cogens, in the United Nations Charter and enshrined in other major international legal instruments including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as one of the fundamental principles in international law (United Nations, 1945). While these covenants declare that “all peoples have the right of self-determination” and to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”, the lack of a formal definition of ‘peoples’ has left the term open to interpretation and restricted the scope of self-determination (UN General Assembly, 1966).
For years, Indigenous peoples around the world have been fighting for the right of self-determination and recognition that they are a ‘peoples’ in international foras and under international law, as well as within the State they have been made a part of. Because of the ambiguity over the concept of ‘peoples’, and in an effort to safeguard their territorial integrity and political unity against possible “Indigenous secession”, States have for a long time expressed reluctance to acknowledge Indigenous groups as ‘peoples’ and to recognise their distinct collective rights (Sargent & Melling, 2012, p. 117). In response, Indigenous representatives have “challenged the exclusion o...
... middle of paper ...
...tries where Indigenous self-determination “has been defined much more narrowly … than it has been in international forums” and its exercise has been limited to “what is compatible with the interests of the … state”, there remain critical gaps in social and economic indicators between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups (Roberts, 1994, p. 212). This is indicative of the significant limitations on the relevance of international legal frameworks in a domestic context in producing any real benefits for Indigenous peoples. Ultimately, self-determination is key to addressing general Indigenous disadvantage and central to realising Indigenous peoples’ goals including equality and non-discrimination, protection of cultural identity, economic development and independence, resources and land entitlement, self-governance and compensation for dispossession (O’Donoghue, 1994).
Glen Coulthard’s “Resentment and Indigenous Politics” discusses the politics of recognition that are currently utilized within Canada’s current framework of rectifying its colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples. Coulthard continues a discussion on reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the state that recognizes the three main methods of reconciliation: the diversity of individual and collective practices to re-establish a positive self relation, the act of restoring damaged social and political relationships and the process in which things are brought to agreement and made consistent.
Indigenous People. In evaluating the Legal System’s response to Indigenous People and it’s achieving of justice, an outline of the history of Indigenous Australians - before and during settlement - as well as their status in Australian society today must be made. The dispossession of their land and culture has deprived Indigenous People of economic revenue that the land would have provided if not colonised, as well as their ... ... middle of paper ... ...
First I will define the definition of terms used in this paper. When I use the word Aboriginal, I understand this as a label given from the colonizers/ Europeans to identify Indigenous peoples. Canadian legislation defines Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal, I understand this as indifferent from the dominant ideology, therefore, the colonizers named Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal. According to teachings I have been exposed to it’s a legal term and it’s associated with discrimination and oppression. However, audiences I have written for prefer the use of Aboriginal. More premise to this reference is Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nations, Indian and Native are used interchangeable, but it should be noted these names do represent distinct differences. Furthermore, I will use Indigenous to represent an empowering way to reference a unique general culture in Canada. Under the title of Indigenous peoples in Canada, for me represents: First Nations people, Metis people and Inuit peoples. These are the two titles I will use when I reference Indigenous people from an empowering perspective and Aboriginal from a colonizer perspective.
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
United nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples In United Nations. General Assembly, United Nations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Eds.), . New York: New York : United Nations, 2008.
“The recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second largest country in the world the geographical constraints on uniting Aboriginal people living across the country plays a significant factor. Flanagan also points to the diversity within this group; there are over six hundred bands across the ten provinces in Canada in more than 2,200 reserves. Compounding the geographical constraints facing their unity, Aboriginal bands in Canada often differ from each other significantly in their culture including language religion/customs (Flanagan 71). Many Aboriginal people now choose to live off reserve which further complicates their unity (Flanagan 73). Flanagan highlights that as many small bodies they would not be able to survive in the competition of the international community. Current international governance is extremely complex and Flanagan argues it is unlikely for poor isolated people to succeed (73). One united aboriginal voice is also highly unlikely according to Flanagan; having been freed of one power most bands would not choose to become conne...
Indigenous people have identified themselves with country; they believe that they and the land are “one”, and that it is lived in and lived with. Indigenous people personify country as if it were a person, as something that connects itself to the land, people and earth, being able to give and receive life (Bird Rose, D. 1996). Country is sacred and interconnected within the indigenous community,
Wood, W. M., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Promoting
Australia’s Indigenous people are thought to have reached the continent between 60 000 and 80 000 years ago. Over the thousands of years since then, a complex customary legal system have developed, strongly linked to the notion of kinship and based on oral tradition. The indigenous people were not seen as have a political culture or system for law. They were denied the access to basic human right e.g., the right to land ownership. Their cultural values of indigenous people became lost. They lost their traditional lifestyle and became disconnected socially. This means that they were unable to pass down their heritage and also were disconnected from the new occupants of the land.
Self-determination theory is one that assumes all humans are born with an innate drive to better oneself, basically becoming self-actualized, which is referred to as full-functioning. In self-determination theory, or SDT, full-functioning is characterized as “being aware and mindful, acting autonomously…, and pursuing and attaining intrinsic life goals” (Deci, Ryan, and, Guay 2013). SDT describes three autonomous behaviors: intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated, and emotionally motivated. SDT also describes three psychological basic needs of every human: the needs for competency, autonomy, and relatedness. The need for competency causes people to try tasks slightly tougher than they can currently manage, in order to improve upon