The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview

Articles 18, 19 and 23 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2008 and Articles 6 and 15 of the ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People No 169 of 1989, generated a concept of the ‘duty to consult’ indigenous peoples in matters that adversely affect their...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa
Main Author: Barrie, George
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: UNISA Press 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/5307
https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/CILSA/article/download/5307/4938
id crunisapress:10.25159/2522-3062/5307
record_format openpolar
spelling crunisapress:10.25159/2522-3062/5307 2024-06-09T07:46:32+00:00 The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview Barrie, George 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/5307 https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/CILSA/article/download/5307/4938 unknown UNISA Press Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa volume 53, issue 3 ISSN 2522-3062 0010-4051 journal-article 2021 crunisapress https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/5307 2024-05-15T13:31:51Z Articles 18, 19 and 23 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2008 and Articles 6 and 15 of the ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People No 169 of 1989, generated a concept of the ‘duty to consult’ indigenous peoples in matters that adversely affect their interests. The question as to whether this ‘duty to consult’ had not developed into a rule of customary international law, was raised at the International Law Association’s meeting in Sofia in 2012. To answer this question a survey of state practice needs to be undertaken. This article focusses on the state practice of Canada regarding the ‘duty to consult’ as illustrated by decisions of that country’s courts. It can be implied that Canadian courts see the ‘duty to consult’ as an obligation which must be adhered to. Canadian courts have recognised the ‘duty to consult’ since the judgment in R v Sparrow in 1990, but the elaboration of the concept came strongly to the fore in a trilogy of cases in 2004 and 2005 in the Haida Nation, Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation cases. Since then, the concept has been incisively discussed and applied in the Canadian Supreme Court in the Rio Tinto, Little Salmon, Moses and the Behn/Moulton Contracting cases from 2010 to 2013. The above developments are encapsulated in the 2017 Ontario Superior Court case of Saugeen First Nation. The example of Canadian courts accepting ‘the duty to consult’ its indigenous peoples has manifested itself in other jurisdictions, particularly in Australia and recently in South Africa; and indicates an evolving international customary law norm. Article in Journal/Newspaper haida tlingit Unisa Press (University of South Africa) Behn ENVELOPE(-61.433,-61.433,-64.383,-64.383) Canada Little Salmon ENVELOPE(-135.687,-135.687,62.049,62.049) Moses ENVELOPE(-99.183,-99.183,-74.550,-74.550) Taku ENVELOPE(-133.854,-133.854,59.633,59.633) Taku River ENVELOPE(-133.654,-133.654,58.583,58.583) Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 53 3
institution Open Polar
collection Unisa Press (University of South Africa)
op_collection_id crunisapress
language unknown
description Articles 18, 19 and 23 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2008 and Articles 6 and 15 of the ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People No 169 of 1989, generated a concept of the ‘duty to consult’ indigenous peoples in matters that adversely affect their interests. The question as to whether this ‘duty to consult’ had not developed into a rule of customary international law, was raised at the International Law Association’s meeting in Sofia in 2012. To answer this question a survey of state practice needs to be undertaken. This article focusses on the state practice of Canada regarding the ‘duty to consult’ as illustrated by decisions of that country’s courts. It can be implied that Canadian courts see the ‘duty to consult’ as an obligation which must be adhered to. Canadian courts have recognised the ‘duty to consult’ since the judgment in R v Sparrow in 1990, but the elaboration of the concept came strongly to the fore in a trilogy of cases in 2004 and 2005 in the Haida Nation, Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation cases. Since then, the concept has been incisively discussed and applied in the Canadian Supreme Court in the Rio Tinto, Little Salmon, Moses and the Behn/Moulton Contracting cases from 2010 to 2013. The above developments are encapsulated in the 2017 Ontario Superior Court case of Saugeen First Nation. The example of Canadian courts accepting ‘the duty to consult’ its indigenous peoples has manifested itself in other jurisdictions, particularly in Australia and recently in South Africa; and indicates an evolving international customary law norm.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Barrie, George
spellingShingle Barrie, George
The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
author_facet Barrie, George
author_sort Barrie, George
title The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
title_short The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
title_full The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
title_fullStr The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
title_full_unstemmed The Canadian Courts’ Approach to the ‘Duty to Consult’ Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Overview
title_sort canadian courts’ approach to the ‘duty to consult’ indigenous peoples: a comparative overview
publisher UNISA Press
publishDate 2021
url http://dx.doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/5307
https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/CILSA/article/download/5307/4938
long_lat ENVELOPE(-61.433,-61.433,-64.383,-64.383)
ENVELOPE(-135.687,-135.687,62.049,62.049)
ENVELOPE(-99.183,-99.183,-74.550,-74.550)
ENVELOPE(-133.854,-133.854,59.633,59.633)
ENVELOPE(-133.654,-133.654,58.583,58.583)
geographic Behn
Canada
Little Salmon
Moses
Taku
Taku River
geographic_facet Behn
Canada
Little Salmon
Moses
Taku
Taku River
genre haida
tlingit
genre_facet haida
tlingit
op_source Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa
volume 53, issue 3
ISSN 2522-3062 0010-4051
op_doi https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/5307
container_title Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa
container_volume 53
container_issue 3
_version_ 1801376433967202304