{"title":"探索“协商或同意”范式的替代方案","authors":"J. Searle","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.6.2.exploring","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Dakota Access Pipeline brought the question of what adequate tribal consultation requires to the forefront. Some would argue that consultation is a weak standard and that only adopting a new standard of free, prior, and informed consent can guarantee tribes greater control and respect. However, the “consultation or consent” paradigm does not take into account important sources of law that do not fit under “consultation” or “consent” and yet could be valuable in strengthening tribes’ claims in the absence of a consent standard.","PeriodicalId":401480,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Alternatives to the \\\"Consultation or Consent\\\" Paradigm\",\"authors\":\"J. Searle\",\"doi\":\"10.36640/mjeal.6.2.exploring\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Dakota Access Pipeline brought the question of what adequate tribal consultation requires to the forefront. Some would argue that consultation is a weak standard and that only adopting a new standard of free, prior, and informed consent can guarantee tribes greater control and respect. However, the “consultation or consent” paradigm does not take into account important sources of law that do not fit under “consultation” or “consent” and yet could be valuable in strengthening tribes’ claims in the absence of a consent standard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.6.2.exploring\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.6.2.exploring","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring Alternatives to the "Consultation or Consent" Paradigm
The Dakota Access Pipeline brought the question of what adequate tribal consultation requires to the forefront. Some would argue that consultation is a weak standard and that only adopting a new standard of free, prior, and informed consent can guarantee tribes greater control and respect. However, the “consultation or consent” paradigm does not take into account important sources of law that do not fit under “consultation” or “consent” and yet could be valuable in strengthening tribes’ claims in the absence of a consent standard.