Aboriginal Title in Recent Supreme Court of Canada Jurisprudence: What Remains of Radical Crown Title?

Ryan Beaton
{"title":"Aboriginal Title in Recent Supreme Court of Canada Jurisprudence: What Remains of Radical Crown Title?","authors":"Ryan Beaton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2535051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three elements in the Supreme Court of Canada's current doctrine of Aboriginal title raise the question whether there is any meaningful content left to the notion of underlying, or radical, Crown title. The first element is the sui generis legal foundation of Aboriginal title in the Aboriginal use and occupation of land prior to the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. The second is the constitutional protection of Aboriginal title, including the potential requirement of full Aboriginal consent to certain Crown proposals. The final element is the Court's stated focus on reconciliation as the overarching goal of modern Aboriginal law, and on negotiation as the preferred means of achieving it. I argue that the first two elements have already in principle largely whittled down the doctrinal content of radical Crown title, while in practice its continued recognition creates the kind of imbalance at the negotiating table that undermines reconciliation. I suggest the Court should therefore consider alternatives to upholding radical Crown title to Aboriginal land.","PeriodicalId":264071,"journal":{"name":"Revue nationale de droit constitutionnel","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue nationale de droit constitutionnel","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2535051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Three elements in the Supreme Court of Canada's current doctrine of Aboriginal title raise the question whether there is any meaningful content left to the notion of underlying, or radical, Crown title. The first element is the sui generis legal foundation of Aboriginal title in the Aboriginal use and occupation of land prior to the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. The second is the constitutional protection of Aboriginal title, including the potential requirement of full Aboriginal consent to certain Crown proposals. The final element is the Court's stated focus on reconciliation as the overarching goal of modern Aboriginal law, and on negotiation as the preferred means of achieving it. I argue that the first two elements have already in principle largely whittled down the doctrinal content of radical Crown title, while in practice its continued recognition creates the kind of imbalance at the negotiating table that undermines reconciliation. I suggest the Court should therefore consider alternatives to upholding radical Crown title to Aboriginal land.
最近加拿大最高法院判例中的原住民所有权:激进王冠所有权的残余?
加拿大最高法院现行的原住民所有权原则中的三个要素提出了一个问题,即是否有任何有意义的内容留给潜在的或根本的皇冠所有权的概念。第一个因素是在国王主张主权之前,土著人对土地的使用和占有中土著所有权的独特法律基础。第二是宪法对土著所有权的保护,包括土著居民对某些王室提议的完全同意的潜在要求。最后一个因素是法院明确强调和解是现代土著法律的首要目标,并强调谈判是实现这一目标的首选手段。我认为,前两个要素原则上已经在很大程度上削弱了激进王冠头衔的教义内容,而在实践中,对它的持续承认在谈判桌上造成了一种破坏和解的不平衡。因此,我建议法院应考虑其他选择,而不是支持对土著土地的激进王室所有权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信