Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada

Macklem, Patrick

doi:10.3138/9781442627901

Cited by 131 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These categories are not only descriptive but also contain strong normative overtones, especially the Canadian approaches that are frequently painted as colonial (Ladner 2005; Macklem 2001; Turner 2006). Patricia Monture‐Angus (2000), for instance, argues that the Canadian legal system (i.e., judicial federalism) is problematic because it privileges Canadian laws over aboriginal ones.…”

Section: Background Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patricia Monture-Angus (2000), for instance, argues that the Canadian legal system (i.e., judicial federalism) is problematic because it privileges Canadian laws over aboriginal ones. Patrick Macklem (2001) believes that the Canadian Constitution as it is currently constructed unfairly harms aboriginal peoples and prevents them from receiving distributive justice. Taiaiake Alfred (2008) and Abele and Prince (2003: 150-51) criticize the Canadian state for forcing aboriginal peoples to negotiate for the transfer of their traditional lands in inter-governmental arenas that privilege the Canadian state.…”

Section: Background Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strengthening the ties that bind? An analysis of aboriginal-municipal inter-governmental agreements in British Columbia

Nelles

Alcantara

2011

Canadian Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a rich and well‐developed literature on Canadian federalism, multilevel governance, and aboriginal–settler relations, scholars have tended to ignore the variety of inter‐governmental agreements that have emerged between aboriginal and municipal governments in Canada. This article examines ninety‐three such agreements to construct a typology of aboriginal–municipal inter‐governmental partnerships in British Columbia. It finds that over time there has been a shift from mundane, service‐provision agreements towards more collaborative, cooperative and sometimes decolonizing, horizontal and multilevel governance partnerships. As a result, the authors suggest that scholars study these agreements to further explain and understand the evolution of aboriginal–settler relations and multilevel governance in Canada.

show abstract

Section: Background Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the ties that bind? An analysis of aboriginal-municipal inter-governmental agreements in British Columbia

Nelles

Alcantara

2011

Canadian Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accumulating jurisprudence gives significant support for the notion of Aboriginal governance as an inherent right that must be institutionalized as a third order of government within the Canadian federation (Macklem 2000;Borrows 2002;). …”

Section: First Nations As Mini-municipalitiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Four Pathways to Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada

Abele¹,

Prince²

2006

American Review of Canadian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent decades have seen the rising of a vital, multifaceted politics in Canada, focused on the future relations between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. While there are many debates about specific arrangements, there is consensus that the negotiated establishment of Aboriginal self-government constitutes a major piece of unfinished business for the Canadian federation. This essay seeks to contribute more structure and focus to contemporary debates by examining four different models of Aboriginal government: "mini-municipalities," a third order of government institutions, the public government federal option, and nation-to-nation relations. Each form has different implications for the relationship between Aboriginal and Canadian political communities, and each has different implications for the institutions and practices of Canadian federalism. We argue that further concurrency of powers and greater asymmetries in intergovernmental relations are likely to be notable features of the Canadian federation, and that no single model or pathway is likely to emerge as the dominant one in the near and medium term.

show abstract

“…Note that the formal federal recognition of indigenous sovereignties in the United States has gone further than it has in other Western nation-states. In Canada, for example, although the 1982 constitution declares that ''existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed,'' Aboriginal ''self-government'' can be exercised only ''within the framework of the Canadian Constitution,'' and the particulars of self-government must be negotiated with the federal and provincial or territorial governments (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 1995; see also Asch 1993; Harris 2002;Macklem 2001;McKee 2000). Indigenous sovereignty is even less developed in Australia, where the recognition of ''Native Title'' subsequent to the groundbreaking Mabo decision in 1992 does not involve recognition of sovereignty or Aboriginal selfgovernment (see Mercer 1997;Povinelli 2002;Reynolds 1996;Webber 2000).…”

Section: Tribal Sovereigntymentioning

confidence: 99%

Imagined geographies: Sovereignty, indigenous space, and American Indian struggle

Biolsi

2005

American Ethnologist

227

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I seek to complicate scholars' understanding of the “modular” form of the nation‐state by examining four kinds of indigenous political space that figure in contemporary American Indian struggle in the United States: (1) “tribal” or indigenous‐nation sovereignty on reservation homelands; (2) comanagement of off‐reservation resources and sites shared between tribal, federal, and state governments; (3) national indigenous space in which Indian people exercise portable rights beyond reservations; and (4) hybrid political space in which Indian people exercise dual citizenship and assert rights as tribal citizens under treaty and other federal Indian law, as U.S. citizens under the Constitution, and as social or cultural citizens within a multicultural U.S. society.

show abstract

Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada

Cited by 131 publications

References 0 publications

Strengthening the ties that bind? An analysis of aboriginal-municipal inter-governmental agreements in British Columbia

Strengthening the ties that bind? An analysis of aboriginal-municipal inter-governmental agreements in British Columbia

Four Pathways to Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada

Imagined geographies: Sovereignty, indigenous space, and American Indian struggle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About