Ucla Law ReviewPub Date : 2000-08-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315252391-11
Rebecca A. Tsosie
{"title":"Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights","authors":"Rebecca A. Tsosie","doi":"10.4324/9781315252391-11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252391-11","url":null,"abstract":"Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"1615-1640"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2000-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70641079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"RULES AND STANDARDS","authors":"Pierre Schlag","doi":"10.1201/b13827-64","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1201/b13827-64","url":null,"abstract":"Every student of law has at some point encountered the “bright line rule” and the “flexible standard.” In one torts casebook, for instance, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Benjamin Cardozo find themselves on opposite sides of a railroad crossing dispute. They disagree about what standard of conduct should define the obligations of a driver who comes to an unguarded railroad crossing. Holmes offers a rule: The driver must stop and look. Cardozo rejects the rule and instead offers a standard: The driver must act with reasonable caution. Which is the preferable approach? Holmes suggests that the requirements of due care at railroad crossings are clear and, therefore, it is appropriate to crystallize these obligations into a simple rule of law. Cardozo counters with scenarios in which it would be neither wise nor prudent for a driver to stop and look. Holmes might well have answered that Cardozo’s scenarios are exceptions and that exceptions prove the rule. Indeed, Holmes might have parried by suggesting that the definition of a standard of conduct by means of a legal rule is predictable and certain, whereas standards and juries are not. This dispute could go on for quite some time.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65980905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ucla Law ReviewPub Date : 1970-01-01DOI: 10.1515/9781400868247-035
Michael E. Tigar
{"title":"Judicial Power, the “Political Question Doctrine,” and Foreign Relations","authors":"Michael E. Tigar","doi":"10.1515/9781400868247-035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400868247-035","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"1135"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"1970-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/9781400868247-035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66836025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}