{"title":"边缘的阿尼希纳贝法:作为殖民扩张的加拿大安大略省北部的条约法","authors":"Tenille E. Brown","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i2.6497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1850, 17 years before the Dominion of Canada was created, colonial officers in representation of Her Majesty the Queen, concluded Treaty Numbers 60 and 61 with the Anishinaabe Nation of Northern Ontario. The Robinson Treaties—so named after William Benjamin Robinson, a government official—include land cessions made by the Anishinaabe communities in return for ongoing financial support and protection of hunting rights. The land areas included in the treaty are vast territories that surround two of Canada’s great lakes: Lake Superior and Lake Huron. These lands were important for colonial expansion as settlements began to move west across North America. The treaties promised increased annual annuity payments “if and when” the treaty territory produced profits that enabled “the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them.” This amount has not been increased in 150 years. This article reviews Restoule v. Canada, a recent Ontario decision brought by Anishinaabe Treaty beneficiaries who seek to affirm these treaty rights. A reading of the Robinson Treaties that implements the original treaty promise and increases annuity payments would be a hopeful outcome of the Restoule v. Canada decision for it would be the implementation of reconciliation. In addition, the Restoule decision has important insights to offer about how Indigenous law can guide modern‐day treaty interpretation just as it guided the adoption of the treaty in 1850. The Robinson Treaties are important for the implementation of treaty promises through Indigenous law and an opportunity to develop a Canada in which Indigenous peoples are true partners in the development and management of natural resources.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anishinaabe Law at the Margins: Treaty Law in Northern Ontario, Canada, as Colonial Expansion\",\"authors\":\"Tenille E. Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/si.v11i2.6497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1850, 17 years before the Dominion of Canada was created, colonial officers in representation of Her Majesty the Queen, concluded Treaty Numbers 60 and 61 with the Anishinaabe Nation of Northern Ontario. The Robinson Treaties—so named after William Benjamin Robinson, a government official—include land cessions made by the Anishinaabe communities in return for ongoing financial support and protection of hunting rights. The land areas included in the treaty are vast territories that surround two of Canada’s great lakes: Lake Superior and Lake Huron. These lands were important for colonial expansion as settlements began to move west across North America. The treaties promised increased annual annuity payments “if and when” the treaty territory produced profits that enabled “the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them.” This amount has not been increased in 150 years. This article reviews Restoule v. Canada, a recent Ontario decision brought by Anishinaabe Treaty beneficiaries who seek to affirm these treaty rights. A reading of the Robinson Treaties that implements the original treaty promise and increases annuity payments would be a hopeful outcome of the Restoule v. Canada decision for it would be the implementation of reconciliation. In addition, the Restoule decision has important insights to offer about how Indigenous law can guide modern‐day treaty interpretation just as it guided the adoption of the treaty in 1850. The Robinson Treaties are important for the implementation of treaty promises through Indigenous law and an opportunity to develop a Canada in which Indigenous peoples are true partners in the development and management of natural resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i2.6497\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i2.6497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Anishinaabe Law at the Margins: Treaty Law in Northern Ontario, Canada, as Colonial Expansion
In 1850, 17 years before the Dominion of Canada was created, colonial officers in representation of Her Majesty the Queen, concluded Treaty Numbers 60 and 61 with the Anishinaabe Nation of Northern Ontario. The Robinson Treaties—so named after William Benjamin Robinson, a government official—include land cessions made by the Anishinaabe communities in return for ongoing financial support and protection of hunting rights. The land areas included in the treaty are vast territories that surround two of Canada’s great lakes: Lake Superior and Lake Huron. These lands were important for colonial expansion as settlements began to move west across North America. The treaties promised increased annual annuity payments “if and when” the treaty territory produced profits that enabled “the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them.” This amount has not been increased in 150 years. This article reviews Restoule v. Canada, a recent Ontario decision brought by Anishinaabe Treaty beneficiaries who seek to affirm these treaty rights. A reading of the Robinson Treaties that implements the original treaty promise and increases annuity payments would be a hopeful outcome of the Restoule v. Canada decision for it would be the implementation of reconciliation. In addition, the Restoule decision has important insights to offer about how Indigenous law can guide modern‐day treaty interpretation just as it guided the adoption of the treaty in 1850. The Robinson Treaties are important for the implementation of treaty promises through Indigenous law and an opportunity to develop a Canada in which Indigenous peoples are true partners in the development and management of natural resources.
期刊介绍:
Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.