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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hobbs, H
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