{"title":"神圣义务:跨文化正义与条约权利话语","authors":"Rebecca A. Tsosie","doi":"10.4324/9781315252391-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"1615-1640"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2000-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca A. Tsosie\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315252391-11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"1615-1640\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252391-11\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ucla Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252391-11","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights
Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.
期刊介绍:
In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren welcomed the UCLA Law Review''s founding volume by stating that, “[t]o a judge, whose decisions provide grist for the law review mill, the review may be both a severe critique and a helpful guide.” The UCLA Law Review seeks to publish the highest quality legal scholarship written by professors, aspiring academics, and students. In doing so, we strive to provide an environment in which UCLA Law Review students may grow as legal writers and thinkers. Founded in December 1953, the UCLA Law Review publishes six times per year by students of the UCLA School of Law and the Regents of the University of California. We also publish material solely for online consumption and dialogue in Discourse, and we produce podcasts in Dialectic.