D2. National Legislative and Judicial Action
Specific Expectations
D2.1
describe and compare the roles of legislative and judicial branches of government in protecting the rights of Indigenous citizens (e.g., with reference to the establishment of judicial councils in countries such as Ecuador and Paraguay; constitutional reforms recognizing Indigenous peoples’ right to be subject to customary law; legislative versus judicial protections for commonly held lands; legislative definitions of the role and responsibilities of government with respect to Indigenous education and health)
- How does increasing the presence of state judicial authorities in Indigenous communities bring about institutional change? What examples can you give? How might you compare the goals of this strategy with the goals of increasing Indigenous representation in state legislative bodies?
- In what ways has the New Zealand parliament committed itself to protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples? How has the judicial branch supported these actions?
- The Mohawk band council of Akwesasne has established what is considered to be the first Indigenous legal system in Canada that is outside federal government control. Is this a legislative or a judicial arrangement? How does it operate without conflicting with the Canadian judicial system? What examples of Indigenous legal systems, if any, can you find in other countries?
D2.2
analyse the significance of a variety of legislative actions around the world to protect the rights of Indigenous populations within national borders and/or to affirm the sovereignty, nationhood, and/or distinct status of these groups (e.g., with reference to the challenges of transforming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP] and earlier Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention into local laws to protect isolated or “uncontacted” Indigenous peoples in Brazil; amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977, addressing the right of First Nations individuals to make complaints of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Commission; safeguards for Sami language, culture, and way of life outlined in Norway’s Sámi Act, 1987; the recognition of Aboriginal peoples in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982)
- Why was section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act repealed? What were the political consequences?
- What legislative action has India taken to protect the rights of Indigenous individuals and communities? Have these provisions been effective? Why, or why not?
- Why is it important for governments to transform the international standards expressed in the UNDRIP into national legislation? What factors can make this process challenging?
D2.3
analyse the continuing significance of various historical and contemporary court actions to uphold the right of Indigenous populations to sovereignty/self-governance and/or to address the denial of human rights to Indigenous individuals or communities (e.g., Calder v. British Columbia, 1973, acknowledged that Aboriginal title existed prior to colonization; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832, laid the foundation for the doctrine of tribal sovereignty by establishing that the relationship between Indigenous nations and the United States is a relationship of nations; the 2009 case of Ángela Poma Poma v. Peru before the Human Rights Committee recognized the right of Indigenous peoples to prior and informed consent)
- In what way was the UN Human Rights Committee decision with respect to Ángela Poma Poma important for Indigenous peoples worldwide?
