所有人的胜利,一些人的管理:俄克拉荷马州土著管辖权扩张影响的差异研究

IF 3.1 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Raymond Orr, Yancey Orr
{"title":"所有人的胜利,一些人的管理:俄克拉荷马州土著管辖权扩张影响的差异研究","authors":"Raymond Orr, Yancey Orr","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indigenous polities often face the consequences of decisions that emerge from processes outside of their control. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, which recognized nearly a third of the state of Oklahoma as potentially within the jurisdiction of five Native American tribes, is one such example. The lawsuit generating this decision was a legal appeal by an individual – not a tribe – and may have implications that include recognizing tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters throughout much of the state. The decision was celebrated by tribes and those advocating for greater recognition of their territorial authority. Yet, for tribal leaders and other practitioners of Indigenous self-determination, the decision potentially shifts major administrative burdens to resource-limited tribes. In an attempt to mitigate the significant costs of administering this territory, these tribes have initiated negotiations with the state of Oklahoma and local municipalities to clarify jurisdiction and coordinate administrative responsibilities. Outrage over these negotiations came from mostly academics and activists who perceived negotiations as a rejection of greater jurisdictional sovereignty. This paper uses the McGirt decision as a point of entry to explore differences in how practitioners and academics grounded in Indigenous politics understand the impact of policy shifts even when they further mutually desired commitments.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"426 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Victory for all, administration for some: an examination of differences in the impact of Indigenous jurisdictional expansion in Oklahoma\",\"authors\":\"Raymond Orr, Yancey Orr\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Indigenous polities often face the consequences of decisions that emerge from processes outside of their control. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, which recognized nearly a third of the state of Oklahoma as potentially within the jurisdiction of five Native American tribes, is one such example. The lawsuit generating this decision was a legal appeal by an individual – not a tribe – and may have implications that include recognizing tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters throughout much of the state. The decision was celebrated by tribes and those advocating for greater recognition of their territorial authority. Yet, for tribal leaders and other practitioners of Indigenous self-determination, the decision potentially shifts major administrative burdens to resource-limited tribes. In an attempt to mitigate the significant costs of administering this territory, these tribes have initiated negotiations with the state of Oklahoma and local municipalities to clarify jurisdiction and coordinate administrative responsibilities. Outrage over these negotiations came from mostly academics and activists who perceived negotiations as a rejection of greater jurisdictional sovereignty. This paper uses the McGirt decision as a point of entry to explore differences in how practitioners and academics grounded in Indigenous politics understand the impact of policy shifts even when they further mutually desired commitments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"426 - 440\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Design and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

抽象的土著政治往往面临着来自其控制之外的过程的决策的后果。2020年,美国最高法院对McGirt诉俄克拉何马州一案的裁决就是这样一个例子,该裁决承认俄克拉何马州近三分之一的地区可能属于五个美洲原住民部落的管辖范围。产生这一决定的诉讼是个人而非部落的法律上诉,可能会产生影响,包括承认部落在该州大部分地区的民事和刑事事务中的管辖权。这一决定受到了部落和那些主张进一步承认其领土权威的人的赞扬。然而,对于部落领袖和其他土著自决从业者来说,这一决定可能会将主要的行政负担转移到资源有限的部落身上。为了减轻管理这片领土的巨大成本,这些部落已经开始与俄克拉荷马州和地方市政当局进行谈判,以澄清管辖权并协调行政责任。对这些谈判的愤怒主要来自学者和活动家,他们认为谈判是对更大管辖权主权的拒绝。本文以McGirt决定为切入点,探讨了以土著政治为基础的从业者和学者如何理解政策转变的影响,即使他们进一步达成了共同期望的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Victory for all, administration for some: an examination of differences in the impact of Indigenous jurisdictional expansion in Oklahoma
Abstract Indigenous polities often face the consequences of decisions that emerge from processes outside of their control. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, which recognized nearly a third of the state of Oklahoma as potentially within the jurisdiction of five Native American tribes, is one such example. The lawsuit generating this decision was a legal appeal by an individual – not a tribe – and may have implications that include recognizing tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters throughout much of the state. The decision was celebrated by tribes and those advocating for greater recognition of their territorial authority. Yet, for tribal leaders and other practitioners of Indigenous self-determination, the decision potentially shifts major administrative burdens to resource-limited tribes. In an attempt to mitigate the significant costs of administering this territory, these tribes have initiated negotiations with the state of Oklahoma and local municipalities to clarify jurisdiction and coordinate administrative responsibilities. Outrage over these negotiations came from mostly academics and activists who perceived negotiations as a rejection of greater jurisdictional sovereignty. This paper uses the McGirt decision as a point of entry to explore differences in how practitioners and academics grounded in Indigenous politics understand the impact of policy shifts even when they further mutually desired commitments.
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
Policy Design and Practice
Policy Design and Practice PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信