支持独立的土著法律制度

B. Miller
{"title":"支持独立的土著法律制度","authors":"B. Miller","doi":"10.3167/jla.2022.060205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nUS and Canadian approaches to tribal legal orders have taken different paths, and here I argue that the Canadian model should move towards free-standing Indigenous courts as they currently exist in the United States. The Canadian approach has focussed on the issue of over-incarceration of Indigenous prisoners, but even newer efforts have stopped short of recognising at least partial criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Canadian approach fails to support Indigenous jurisdiction and community rebuilding and leaves Indigenous peoples vulnerable to non-Indigenous judges, who fail to accommodate Indigenous approaches to justice. Early attempts at shared jurisdiction have been naïve regarding Indigenous internal social processes and the struggle over what constitutes proper cultural practices. My data come from my own work with Coast Salish tribes, where I have studied tribal histories and legal practices on both sides of the international border as well their views of federal policy in both Canada and the United States.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"88 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In support of free-standing Indigenous legal systems\",\"authors\":\"B. Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/jla.2022.060205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nUS and Canadian approaches to tribal legal orders have taken different paths, and here I argue that the Canadian model should move towards free-standing Indigenous courts as they currently exist in the United States. The Canadian approach has focussed on the issue of over-incarceration of Indigenous prisoners, but even newer efforts have stopped short of recognising at least partial criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Canadian approach fails to support Indigenous jurisdiction and community rebuilding and leaves Indigenous peoples vulnerable to non-Indigenous judges, who fail to accommodate Indigenous approaches to justice. Early attempts at shared jurisdiction have been naïve regarding Indigenous internal social processes and the struggle over what constitutes proper cultural practices. My data come from my own work with Coast Salish tribes, where I have studied tribal histories and legal practices on both sides of the international border as well their views of federal policy in both Canada and the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"88 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2022.060205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2022.060205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国和加拿大对部落法律秩序采取了不同的方式,在这里我认为加拿大模式应该向独立的土著法院发展,就像目前在美国存在的那样。加拿大的做法侧重于过度监禁土著囚犯的问题,但即使是较新的努力也没有承认至少部分的刑事和民事管辖权。加拿大的做法未能支持土著司法和社区重建,使土著人民容易受到非土著法官的伤害,而非土著法官未能适应土著的司法做法。共同管辖权的早期尝试是naïve关于土著内部社会进程和关于什么是适当的文化习俗的斗争。我的数据来自我自己对海岸萨利希部落的研究,在那里我研究了国际边界两侧的部落历史和法律惯例,以及他们对加拿大和美国联邦政策的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In support of free-standing Indigenous legal systems
US and Canadian approaches to tribal legal orders have taken different paths, and here I argue that the Canadian model should move towards free-standing Indigenous courts as they currently exist in the United States. The Canadian approach has focussed on the issue of over-incarceration of Indigenous prisoners, but even newer efforts have stopped short of recognising at least partial criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Canadian approach fails to support Indigenous jurisdiction and community rebuilding and leaves Indigenous peoples vulnerable to non-Indigenous judges, who fail to accommodate Indigenous approaches to justice. Early attempts at shared jurisdiction have been naïve regarding Indigenous internal social processes and the struggle over what constitutes proper cultural practices. My data come from my own work with Coast Salish tribes, where I have studied tribal histories and legal practices on both sides of the international border as well their views of federal policy in both Canada and the United States.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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