The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation
This article is intended as a companion piece to Øyvind Ravna’s contribution to this anniversary volume. It maps the development of the duty to consult in Canadian law since the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada inHaida Nation v British Columbiain 2004. The article begins by briefly ex...
Published in: | Arctic Review on Law and Politics |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Faculty of Law
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568 https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 |
id |
ftjarlp:oai:nordicopenaccess.no:article/2568 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftjarlp:oai:nordicopenaccess.no:article/2568 2023-05-15T14:18:43+02:00 The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation Bankes, Nigel 2020-12-09 application/pdf text/html application/epub+zip text/xml https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568 https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 eng eng University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Faculty of Law https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4792 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4793 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4794 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4795 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568 doi:10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 Copyright (c) 2020 Nigel Bankes http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 CC-BY-NC Arctic Review; Vol 11 (2020); 256-279 2387-4562 Canada Indigenous peoples duty to consult free prior and informed consent info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2020 ftjarlp https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 2022-03-24T06:35:03Z This article is intended as a companion piece to Øyvind Ravna’s contribution to this anniversary volume. It maps the development of the duty to consult in Canadian law since the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada inHaida Nation v British Columbiain 2004. The article begins by briefly examining the first references to the duty to consult in 1990 before turning in Part 2 to the transformation of the duty inHaida Nationand a doctrinal analysis of the various elements of the duty. Part 3 examines the international standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as developed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the implications of legislation that aims to give effect to the Declaration in federal or provincial law. The conclusion to the paper offers some comparative comments on Norway and Canada regarding the development of the duty to consult. These comments emphasise that whereas consultation and FPIC obligations in Norway are firmly rooted in international law, and, in particular, in the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO C-169), this is not the case in Canada. In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate finds its origins in domestic law and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution in 1982. However, more recent discussions over the implementation of the UN Declaration in federal and provincial law have inevitably broadened the discourse to include international law and the FPIC standard. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Arctic Review on Law and Politics Canada Norway Arctic Review on Law and Politics 11 256 279 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Arctic Review on Law and Politics |
op_collection_id |
ftjarlp |
language |
English |
topic |
Canada Indigenous peoples duty to consult free prior and informed consent |
spellingShingle |
Canada Indigenous peoples duty to consult free prior and informed consent Bankes, Nigel The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
topic_facet |
Canada Indigenous peoples duty to consult free prior and informed consent |
description |
This article is intended as a companion piece to Øyvind Ravna’s contribution to this anniversary volume. It maps the development of the duty to consult in Canadian law since the seminal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada inHaida Nation v British Columbiain 2004. The article begins by briefly examining the first references to the duty to consult in 1990 before turning in Part 2 to the transformation of the duty inHaida Nationand a doctrinal analysis of the various elements of the duty. Part 3 examines the international standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as developed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the implications of legislation that aims to give effect to the Declaration in federal or provincial law. The conclusion to the paper offers some comparative comments on Norway and Canada regarding the development of the duty to consult. These comments emphasise that whereas consultation and FPIC obligations in Norway are firmly rooted in international law, and, in particular, in the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO C-169), this is not the case in Canada. In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate finds its origins in domestic law and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution in 1982. However, more recent discussions over the implementation of the UN Declaration in federal and provincial law have inevitably broadened the discourse to include international law and the FPIC standard. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Bankes, Nigel |
author_facet |
Bankes, Nigel |
author_sort |
Bankes, Nigel |
title |
The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
title_short |
The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
title_full |
The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
title_fullStr |
The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Duty to Consult in Canada Post-Haida Nation |
title_sort |
duty to consult in canada post-haida nation |
publisher |
University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Faculty of Law |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568 https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 |
geographic |
Canada Norway |
geographic_facet |
Canada Norway |
genre |
Arctic |
genre_facet |
Arctic |
op_source |
Arctic Review; Vol 11 (2020); 256-279 2387-4562 |
op_relation |
https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4792 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4793 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4794 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568/4795 https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/2568 doi:10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 |
op_rights |
Copyright (c) 2020 Nigel Bankes http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
op_rightsnorm |
CC-BY-NC |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2568 |
container_title |
Arctic Review on Law and Politics |
container_volume |
11 |
container_start_page |
256 |
op_container_end_page |
279 |
_version_ |
1766290210131279872 |