土著宪政与法院外争端解决:一种邀请

Q3 Social Sciences
K. Drake
{"title":"土著宪政与法院外争端解决:一种邀请","authors":"K. Drake","doi":"10.1177/0067205X20955069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights filters Indigenous laws through the lens of liberal constitutionalism, resulting in distortions of Indigenous law. To overcome this constitutional capture, this article advocates for an institution that facilitates dispute resolution between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples grounded in Indigenous constitutionalism. To avoid a pan-Indigenous approach, this article focuses on Anishinaabe constitutionalism as one example of Indigenous constitutionalism. It highlights points of contrast between Anishinaabe constitutionalism’s and liberalism’s foundational norms and dispute resolution procedures. This article argues that a hybrid institution—combining features of both liberalism and Indigenous constitutionalism—would merely reproduce the constitutional capture of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. It also illustrates how the procedures of talking circles—which are one means of giving effect to persuasive compliance—promote the voice of all involved. Finally, this article argues that from the perspective of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, the non-binding nature of the processes offered by the new institution would be a strength, not a drawback.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"570 - 585"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20955069","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indigenous Constitutionalism and Dispute Resolution Outside the Courts: An Invitation\",\"authors\":\"K. Drake\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X20955069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights filters Indigenous laws through the lens of liberal constitutionalism, resulting in distortions of Indigenous law. To overcome this constitutional capture, this article advocates for an institution that facilitates dispute resolution between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples grounded in Indigenous constitutionalism. To avoid a pan-Indigenous approach, this article focuses on Anishinaabe constitutionalism as one example of Indigenous constitutionalism. It highlights points of contrast between Anishinaabe constitutionalism’s and liberalism’s foundational norms and dispute resolution procedures. This article argues that a hybrid institution—combining features of both liberalism and Indigenous constitutionalism—would merely reproduce the constitutional capture of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. It also illustrates how the procedures of talking circles—which are one means of giving effect to persuasive compliance—promote the voice of all involved. Finally, this article argues that from the perspective of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, the non-binding nature of the processes offered by the new institution would be a strength, not a drawback.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"570 - 585\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20955069\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20955069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20955069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大最高法院关于受宪法保护的原住民权利的判例通过自由宪政的视角过滤了原住民法律,导致了原住民法律的扭曲。为了克服这种宪法捕获,本文主张建立一个以土著宪政为基础的机构,促进加拿大政府和土著人民之间的争端解决。为了避免泛土著的做法,本文将阿尼希纳贝宪政作为土著宪政的一个例子。它强调了阿尼希纳贝宪政和自由主义的基本规范和争端解决程序之间的对比点。本文认为,一个混合制度——结合了自由主义和土著宪政的特征——只会再现对土著权利法学的宪法捕获。它还说明了谈话圈的程序——这是实现有说服力的遵守的一种手段——是如何提高所有参与者的声音的。最后,本文认为,从阿尼希纳贝宪政的角度来看,新制度所提供的程序的非约束性质将是一种优势,而不是缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Indigenous Constitutionalism and Dispute Resolution Outside the Courts: An Invitation
The Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights filters Indigenous laws through the lens of liberal constitutionalism, resulting in distortions of Indigenous law. To overcome this constitutional capture, this article advocates for an institution that facilitates dispute resolution between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples grounded in Indigenous constitutionalism. To avoid a pan-Indigenous approach, this article focuses on Anishinaabe constitutionalism as one example of Indigenous constitutionalism. It highlights points of contrast between Anishinaabe constitutionalism’s and liberalism’s foundational norms and dispute resolution procedures. This article argues that a hybrid institution—combining features of both liberalism and Indigenous constitutionalism—would merely reproduce the constitutional capture of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. It also illustrates how the procedures of talking circles—which are one means of giving effect to persuasive compliance—promote the voice of all involved. Finally, this article argues that from the perspective of Anishinaabe constitutionalism, the non-binding nature of the processes offered by the new institution would be a strength, not a drawback.
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
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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