4 research outputs found

    INCOMMENSURABLE LEGAL CULTURES: INDIGENOUS LEGAL TRADITIONS AND THE COLONIAL NARRATIVE

    No full text
    In this paper, the author argues that the non-Indigenous legal system has historically exerted and continues to exert violence on Indigenous legal traditions by insisting that its interpretation of law is authoritative and excluding alternative interpretations. Relying on Robert Cover’s theories, she asserts that both non-Indigenous and Indigenous legal traditions are based on mythology, narratives and particularized language which support the different normative values that characterize the cultures from which they arise. Non-Indigenous judges may refuse to exert violence by recognizing the value inherent in and accepting the incommensurability of Indigenous legal traditions. Dans le présent document, l’auteure soutient que le système de justice non indigène a depuis toujours attisé et continue d’attiser la violence à l’endroit des traditions juridiques indigènes en répétant que leur interprétation du droit est dictatoriale et en excluant les interprétations non conventionnelles. Se fondant sur les théories de Robert Cover, l’auteure affirme que les traditions juridiques tant indigènes que non indigènes reposent sur la mythologie, sur des narrations et sur un langage particularisé qui soutiennent les différentes valeurs normatives qui caractérisent les cultures dont elles émergent. Les juges non indigènes pourraient refuser d’encourager la violence en reconnaissant la valeur inhérente des traditions juridiques indigènes et en acceptant leur incommensurabilité

    Reconceiving the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples : a relational approach

    No full text
    Duty to consult and accommodate jurisprudence does not live up to the promise of reconciliation that the Supreme Court of Canada has identified as the grand purpose of section 35(1) of the Constitution Acts. I argue that a relational framework to the duty to consult and accommodate would forward reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples within Canada. I suggest four bijural principles to ground this framework: respect, recognition, reciprocity and reconciliation – all of which find support in Canadian and Indigenous laws. The principle of respect situates Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples within a web of relationships that define our identities and level of self-respect. Practical strategies include making interdependence primary, rejecting colonial attitudes, and creating space for Indigenous communities to foster cultural difference. The principle of recognition involves two aspects: acknowledgement and affirmation. Acknowledgment involves acknowledging historic wrongs, taking responsibility, and moving forward together in light of the history. Practical strategies include recognizing the value of Indigenous storytelling, creating spaces for meaningful listening, and making a commitment to remember and change. Affirmation involves formally entrenching in law the inherent rights of Indigenous communities. It involves rejecting the assumption of settler entitlement to Indigenous lands, putting all issues on the table in political negotiations, and creating a sphere of recognition for Indigenous governance and legal systems. The principle of reciprocity involves engaging with cross-cultural others to create an equally beneficial relationship aimed at mutual understanding. Practical strategies include dialogical engagement with no hidden agenda, starting from a point of wonder, humility and risk, and striving for embodied connections with cross-cultural others. The principle of reconciliation involves a long-term process to rebuild damaged relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Practical strategies include rebuilding trust, developing a shared vision of the future, creating processes to manage conflicts that arise, and implementing concrete actions to move towards the shared vision. In the context of the duty to consult and accommodate, each principle points to attitudinal shifts and concrete actions that have implications for Canadian judges and governments. Implementing this relational framework provides a promising pathway forward to rebuild Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships within Canada.Law, Peter A. Allard School ofGraduat

    Toward a Bijural Interpretation of the Principle of Respect in Aboriginal Law

    No full text
    Aboriginal law disputes are disputes that arise in the spaces between Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies. To date, the Supreme Court of Canada has resolved Aboriginal law disputes under section 35 by relying heavily on the common law to the exclusion of Indigenous legal traditions and principles. In this article, the author argues that applying a bijural interpretation of the principle of respect provides a promising pathway forward in resolving Aboriginal law disputes in a way that supports the grand purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—reconciliation. The author discusses the principle of respect by considering both non-Indigenous and Indigenous theories to propose a robust conception of respect to guide Aboriginal law jurisprudence. She then suggests three ways to implement the principle of respect in the intercultural relationship: (1) making interdependence and relationships primary; (2) rejecting colonial attitudes and stereotypes of Indigenous peoples; and (3) creating political and legal space for the expression and flourishing of cultural difference.Les disputes de droit autochtone sont des disputes qui surviennent dans les interstices entre les sociétés autochtones et non autochtones. Jusqu’à présent, la Cour suprême du Canada a résolu des disputes de droit autochtone fondées sur l’article 35 en se fiant à la common law, écartant ainsi les traditions et principes juridiques autochtones. Dans cet article, l’auteure plaide que la mise en application d’une interprétation bijuridique du principe de respect est une avenue prometteuse vers la résolution de conflits de droit autochtone, et ce, d’une façon qui donne soutien à la raison d’être de l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 : la réconciliation. L’auteure discute le principe de respect en tenant compte de théories autochtones et non autochtones, de façon à proposer une conception robuste du respect qui guidera la jurisprudence en droit autochtone. Elle suggère trois moyens d’instituer le principe de respect dans la relation interculturelle : (1) prioriser l’interdépendance et les relations; (2) rejeter les attitudes colonialistes et les stéréotypes entourant les peuples autochtones; et (3) créer un espace politique et juridique pour l’expression et l’épanouissement de différences culturelles
    corecore