First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination
First Nations peoples assert a right to a distinctive relationship with the state based on their pre-colonial status as self-governing sovereign communities. Ascertaining the scope of First Nations peoples’ collective right to self-determination is complex, but there is broad international agreement...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149892 |
id |
ftunivtsydney:oai:opus.lib.uts.edu.au:10453/149892 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivtsydney:oai:opus.lib.uts.edu.au:10453/149892 2023-05-15T16:14:46+02:00 First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination Hobbs, H 2021-07-18T23:53:41Z application/pdf http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149892 en eng https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3 Osgoode Hall Law Journal Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2021, 58, (2), pp. 337-384 0030-6185 http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149892 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. 1801 Law Journal Article 2021 ftunivtsydney 2022-03-13T13:56:43Z First Nations peoples assert a right to a distinctive relationship with the state based on their pre-colonial status as self-governing sovereign communities. Ascertaining the scope of First Nations peoples’ collective right to self-determination is complex, but there is broad international agreement that it encompasses a right to be consulted on state action that will affect their interests, including in the law-making process. The problem is that the right to be consulted in the development of legislation appears to place a constraint on the power of the legislature to propose, debate, amend, and enact laws as they see fit. Does the right to consultation unduly or impermissibly fetter democratic government by imposing a procedural or substantive restriction on the introduction of proposed laws? Can this entitlement be reconciled with the constitutional value of parliamentary supremacy? In recent years, the highest courts in Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand have explored these questions. This paper examines those decisions and considers their consequences for the appropriate constitutional relationship between First Nations Peoples and the State. Article in Journal/Newspaper First Nations University of Technology Sydney: OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars Canada New Zealand |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Technology Sydney: OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars |
op_collection_id |
ftunivtsydney |
language |
English |
topic |
1801 Law |
spellingShingle |
1801 Law Hobbs, H First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
topic_facet |
1801 Law |
description |
First Nations peoples assert a right to a distinctive relationship with the state based on their pre-colonial status as self-governing sovereign communities. Ascertaining the scope of First Nations peoples’ collective right to self-determination is complex, but there is broad international agreement that it encompasses a right to be consulted on state action that will affect their interests, including in the law-making process. The problem is that the right to be consulted in the development of legislation appears to place a constraint on the power of the legislature to propose, debate, amend, and enact laws as they see fit. Does the right to consultation unduly or impermissibly fetter democratic government by imposing a procedural or substantive restriction on the introduction of proposed laws? Can this entitlement be reconciled with the constitutional value of parliamentary supremacy? In recent years, the highest courts in Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand have explored these questions. This paper examines those decisions and considers their consequences for the appropriate constitutional relationship between First Nations Peoples and the State. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Hobbs, H |
author_facet |
Hobbs, H |
author_sort |
Hobbs, H |
title |
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
title_short |
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
title_full |
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
title_fullStr |
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
title_full_unstemmed |
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination |
title_sort |
first nations, settler parliaments, and the question of consultation: reconciling parliamentary supremacy and indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination |
publisher |
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3 |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149892 |
geographic |
Canada New Zealand |
geographic_facet |
Canada New Zealand |
genre |
First Nations |
genre_facet |
First Nations |
op_relation |
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2021, 58, (2), pp. 337-384 0030-6185 http://hdl.handle.net/10453/149892 |
op_rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. |
_version_ |
1766000526851309568 |