Reservation And The International Treaties That Describe Territorial Applications

A policy of self-governance would end treaty violation, justly compensate tribes for land, prevent bureaucrats from obstructing the ability of Native Americans to participate in their religion, and prevent the serious cultural loss that may occur if the government continues to use Native American land for self-interested purposes. Arguments that these objectives are unattainable and unfounded do not hold up to analysis. Therefore, to provide a remedy for the ongoing infringement of Native American constitutional rights, Congress should both return non-privately owned land taken in violation of treaties and abolish federal plenary power over tribes, permitting greater self-governance.

What is the current status of the First Nations Land Claims in the Province of British Columbia? Assess the progress that has been made so far and provide some suggestions to expedite the process.

“To be Indian is to lack power – the power to act as owners of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.” Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1969 “White Papers”

In the 1980’s the state and government drew back from pursuing more legislations or granting land rights from the indigenous land rights because of the shortage of popular support in different places of the country. The indigenous fear of losing from votes and it began to take over from the state and progress of the indigenous rights, but all of this changed in 1992 from a case called the Mabo case that took place with a High Court. This case was named after Eddie Mabo, who was an indigenous from the Murray Island in the Torres Strait. He was the head of a group of his fellow indigenous Torres Strait people called the Meriam people and lead them into the Supreme Court to challenge the Queensland government for their land rights and ownership,

A First Nation as a whole has the right to the use and benefit of reserve land. The collective interest of First Nations in reserve lands cannot be transferred to another entity except by following strict statutory provisions Some First Nations do not choose to allot lands to individual band members under the Indian Act. They prefer to allow the use of lands to particular families or individuals through a custom or traditional holding, sometimes referred to as "informal holdings." Some First Nations use a combination of Indian Act and custom or traditional systems. Under the Indian Act, non-members can obtain rights to use or occupy reserve land by entering into leases or acquiring permits or licenses.

In this article, Heuser discusses one of the main issues with Aboriginal Land Claims today, and how the government handles them. One of the main issues mentioned was the time it takes to fulfill Aboriginal Land Claims. For example, the Algonquins of Ontario launched a land claim against the provincial and federal government in the 1980s, and it is still being discussed today. Heuser is a journalist for several newspapers including the National Post. Heuser has graduated from the University of Toronto with a J.D. in the faculty of law, as well as receiving her B.A., making her qualified to form valid opinions on government issues. The arguments presented in this article are well stated, and proved with recent government land-claims to back them

The United States agreed on that “no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employees of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians” (Standing Rock Online,

For decades, Controversial and intrusive piece of federal legislation governed almost all aspects of Aboriginal life, from the nature of band governance and land tenure systems to restrictions on Aboriginal cultural practices. Most critically, the Indian Act defines the qualifications for being a “status Indian,” and as such has been the centerpiece of Aboriginal anger over federal attempts to control Aboriginal identity and membership. Since being passed by Parliament in 1876, the Indian Act has been the touchstone for Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Few documents in Canadian history have generated as much debate, anger and sorrow as the Indian Act. Yet the legislation persists as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in the country. While Aboriginal anger with historic and current terms of the Indian Act is deep and powerful, Indigenous politicians and governments remain strongly divided as to the value and purpose of the legislation. This is hardly surprising, given that the political structures and political cultures of Aboriginal communities across the country have, for generations, been created and distorted by the imposition of Indian Act government systems

The Indian Territory is admitted to compose part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees in particular were allowed by the Treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the Constitution, to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.

As many people already know Indian land reservations for AI/AN people were established through years of court cases, treaties, unconstitutional forced migrations and oppression. Those in power in the United States during these times began to create treaties with tribal nations to secure land. Fortunately, American Indian self-determination has in

The concept of indigenous sovereignty is the most debated and contested subject among Indigenous academicians and politicians. To further expand the concept and understand indigenous sovereignty, Aileen brought a new insight and perspectives through the lenses of sociological thought. The Judicio-political is a commonly used approach by many theorists on indigenous sovereignty. In this respect, the author sought to challenge the concept of indigenous sovereignty situated within the Judicio-political framework and the overall epistemological foundation upon which it is built.

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

A fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen; the existence of the circumstances at the time of the Treaty's conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the Treaty. The negative and conditional wording of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a clear indication moreover that the stability of treaty relations requires that the plea of fundamental change of circumstances be applied only in exceptional cases".

An important reason for this popularity is that States have consented in advance to compulsory dispute settlement by the WTO and also, but to a lesser extent, by ICSID arbitration. In the case of the WTO it is the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding that confers compulsory jurisdiction on the WTO Dispute Settlement System; while in the case of ICSID a large number of States have consented in advance to ICSID jurisdiction over their disputes with investors by means of express provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties. Moreover, an important additional reason for the widespread use of ICSID as a forum for international dispute settlement is that investors – who are in effect the substantive rights holders under Bilateral Investment Treaties – are often given the right to institute ICSID arbitration directly against the host State.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial