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
Published in:Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Main Author: Hobbs, Harry
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: Osgoode Digital Commons 2021
Subjects:
Law
Online Access:https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3
https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3680
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3680/viewcontent/uc.pdf
id ftyorkunivohls:oai:digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca:ohlj-3680
record_format openpolar
spelling ftyorkunivohls:oai:digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca:ohlj-3680 2023-08-15T12:41:17+02:00 First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination Hobbs, Harry 2021-07-15T07:00:00Z application/pdf https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3 https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3680 https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3680/viewcontent/uc.pdf unknown Osgoode Digital Commons https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3 doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3680 https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3680/viewcontent/uc.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Osgoode Hall Law Journal Law text 2021 ftyorkunivohls https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3680 2023-07-22T23:05:29Z 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. Text First Nations York University Toronto, Osgoode Hall Law School: Osgoode Digital Commons Canada New Zealand Osgoode Hall Law Journal 58 2 337 384
institution Open Polar
collection York University Toronto, Osgoode Hall Law School: Osgoode Digital Commons
op_collection_id ftyorkunivohls
language unknown
topic Law
spellingShingle Law
Hobbs, Harry
First Nations, Settler Parliaments, and the Question of Consultation: Reconciling Parliamentary Supremacy and Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination
topic_facet 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 Text
author Hobbs, Harry
author_facet Hobbs, Harry
author_sort Hobbs, Harry
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 Osgoode Digital Commons
publishDate 2021
url https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3
https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3680
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3680/viewcontent/uc.pdf
geographic Canada
New Zealand
geographic_facet Canada
New Zealand
genre First Nations
genre_facet First Nations
op_source Osgoode Hall Law Journal
op_relation https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol58/iss2/3
doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3680
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/context/ohlj/article/3680/viewcontent/uc.pdf
op_rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3680
container_title Osgoode Hall Law Journal
container_volume 58
container_issue 2
container_start_page 337
op_container_end_page 384
_version_ 1774294513112580096