联邦和加拿大、美国和澳大利亚土著事务管理的历史:通过跨国方法的新见解

Ted Binnema
{"title":"联邦和加拿大、美国和澳大利亚土著事务管理的历史:通过跨国方法的新见解","authors":"Ted Binnema","doi":"10.7202/1055322ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The importance of decisions regarding the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs in federal states can only be understood well when studied transnationally and comparatively. Historians of Canada appear never to have considered the significance of the fact that the British North America Act (1867) gave the Canadian federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, even though that stipulation is unique among the constitutional documents of comparable federal states (the United States and Australia). This article explains that the constitutional provisions in Canada, the United States, and Australia are a product of the previous history of indigenous-state relations in each location, but also profoundly affected subsequent developments in each of those countries. Despite stark differences, the similar and parallel developments also hint at trends that influenced all three countries.\n","PeriodicalId":122947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Historical Association","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Federation and the History of the Administration of Indigenous Affairs in Canada, the United States, and Australia: New Insights through a Transnational Approach\",\"authors\":\"Ted Binnema\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1055322ar\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The importance of decisions regarding the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs in federal states can only be understood well when studied transnationally and comparatively. Historians of Canada appear never to have considered the significance of the fact that the British North America Act (1867) gave the Canadian federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, even though that stipulation is unique among the constitutional documents of comparable federal states (the United States and Australia). This article explains that the constitutional provisions in Canada, the United States, and Australia are a product of the previous history of indigenous-state relations in each location, but also profoundly affected subsequent developments in each of those countries. Despite stark differences, the similar and parallel developments also hint at trends that influenced all three countries.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":122947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Canadian Historical Association\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Canadian Historical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1055322ar\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Historical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1055322ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

只有在跨国和比较研究时,才能很好地理解关于联邦各州土著事务管辖权分配的决定的重要性。加拿大的历史学家似乎从来没有考虑过这样一个事实的重要性:1867年的《英属北美法案》赋予加拿大联邦政府对印第安人事务的专属管辖权,尽管这一规定在类似的联邦国家(美国和澳大利亚)的宪法文件中是独一无二的。本文解释了加拿大、美国和澳大利亚的宪法规定是每个地方土著国家关系历史的产物,但也深刻地影响了这些国家随后的发展。尽管存在明显差异,但相似和平行的发展也暗示了影响这三个国家的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Federation and the History of the Administration of Indigenous Affairs in Canada, the United States, and Australia: New Insights through a Transnational Approach
The importance of decisions regarding the allocation of jurisdiction over Indigenous affairs in federal states can only be understood well when studied transnationally and comparatively. Historians of Canada appear never to have considered the significance of the fact that the British North America Act (1867) gave the Canadian federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs, even though that stipulation is unique among the constitutional documents of comparable federal states (the United States and Australia). This article explains that the constitutional provisions in Canada, the United States, and Australia are a product of the previous history of indigenous-state relations in each location, but also profoundly affected subsequent developments in each of those countries. Despite stark differences, the similar and parallel developments also hint at trends that influenced all three countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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