Negotiated Sovereignty: Intergovernmental Agreements with American Indian Tribes as Models for Expanding First Nations’ Self-Government
Constitutional issues related to First Nations sovereignty have dominated Aboriginal affairs in Canada for a considerable period. The constitutional entrenchment of Aboriginal self-government has, however, received a setback with the recent failure of the Charlottetown Accord in October of 1992. Non...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Colorado Law Scholarly Commons
1993
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/799 https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1747&context=articles |
| Summary: | Constitutional issues related to First Nations sovereignty have dominated Aboriginal affairs in Canada for a considerable period. The constitutional entrenchment of Aboriginal self-government has, however, received a setback with the recent failure of the Charlottetown Accord in October of 1992. Nonetheless, day-to-day issues must be accommodated, even while this more fundamental constitutional question remains unresolved. This paper illustrates the American experience with negotiated intergovernmental agreements between tribes and individual states. These agreements have, for example, resolved jurisdictional disputes over taxation, solid waste disposal, and law enforcement between state governments and tribal authorities. The author suggests that these intergovernmental agreements in the United States provide a useful model to resolve lingering issues, effect practical solutions and expand First Nations self-government in Canada. |
|---|