Indigenous land rights

Last updated

Indigenous land rights are the rights of Indigenous peoples to land and natural resources therein, either individually or collectively, mostly in colonised countries. Land and resource-related rights are of fundamental importance to Indigenous peoples for a range of reasons, including: the religious significance of the land, self-determination, identity, and economic factors. [1] Land is a major economic asset, and in some Indigenous societies, using natural resources of earth and sea form (or could form) the basis of their household economy, so the demand for ownership derives from the need to ensure their access to these resources. Land can also be an important instrument of inheritance or a symbol of social status. In many Indigenous societies, such as among the many Aboriginal Australian peoples, the land is an essential part of their spirituality and belief systems.

Contents

Indigenous land claims have been addressed with varying degrees of success on the national and international level since the very beginning of colonization. Such claims may be based upon the principles of international law, treaties, common law, or domestic constitutions or legislation. Aboriginal title (also known as Indigenous title, native title and other terms) is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, passed by the UN General Assembly in 2007, illustrates the importance of land for Indigenous peoples and offers benchmark standards on the land rights of indigenous people. Statutory recognition and protection of Indigenous and community land rights continues to be a major challenge, with the gap between formally recognised and customarily held and managed land is a significant source of underdevelopment, conflict, and environmental degradation. [2]

International law

The foundational documents for Indigenous land rights in international law include the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 ("ILO 169"), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

China

Arab Region

Common law

Aboriginal title, also known as native title (Australia), customary title (New Zealand), original Indian title (US), is the common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty. Indigenous peoples may also have certain rights on Crown land in many jurisdictions.

Australia

Indigenous land rights have historically been undermined by a variety of doctrines such as terra nullius . [3] which is a Latin term meaning "land belonging to no one" [4] In 1971, a group of Meriam people in Australia issued a legal claim for their ownership of their island of Mer in the Torres Strait. [5] In their legal claim they issued that their land is inherently and exclusively owned, lived and governed by Meriam people, where they historically managed its political and social issues. [6] After years of the case being heard by the legal courts, and after the death of one of the plaintiffs (Eddie Mabo), the High Court's judgement issued a recognition of the native's ownership to land and the denial of the myth of the terra nullius. [6]

Canada

As Canada's constitution, as belonging to Canada and not Great Britain, is relatively new, the First Nations have been able to advocate for their rights in the constitution itself. [7] First Nation leader George Manuel's Constitution Express idea is a notable attribute to the Aboriginal Rights Movement, among other actions taken by the nations. The Canadian government responded to the nations' advocacy with what came to be referred to as the "White Paper." This document, published in 1969, outlined 5 doctrines that left many indigenous leaders unsatisfied, sparking a meeting of the Indian Association of Alberta the next year. At this meeting, "The Red Paper" (entitled "Citizen Plus") was issued, in which the indigenous perspective was outlined. Of the points outlined, land rights are a large part. The period that followed was an important one for the future of the First Nations and their rights. As state by Arthur Manuel, son of George Manuel, [8]

It was during this period that the national Indian movement began to take shape and to draw on its greatest resource, the First Nations people from across Canada who saw the National Indian Brotherhood as a vehicle they could use to push the federal government for a just settlement on a range of self-government, land title and treaty issues.

The leading case for Aboriginal title in Canada is Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997). This case was a milestone for First Nation land rights. It legitimized oral testimony and proved the nations in British Columbia had land rights unaffected by colonization. However, it did not declare title. The first case to do so in Canada was the Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014). [9] In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the aboriginal title of the Tsilhqot'in Nation. [10]

Japan

Ever since the Ainu were recognised as the indigenous people of Japan in 2019, the Ainu have been able to apply for special land rights if requested. The Ainu Promotion Act 2019 specifically lists special rights over "national parks, rivers and trademarks to preserve Ainu culture". [11]

Latin America

As the political systems of some Latin American countries are now becoming more democratic and open to listening and embracing the views of minorities these issues of land rights have clearly come up to the surface of the political life. Despite this new "re-recognition" bit by bit, the indigenous groups are still among the poorest populations of the countries and they often have less access to resources and they have lesser opportunities for progress and development. The legal situation of Indigenous land rights in the countries of Latin America is highly varied. There is still a very broad variation of Indigenous rights, laws and recognition throughout the whole continent. In the year 1957, the International Labour Organization(ILO), made the ILO Convention 107. This convention created laws and norms for the protection and integration of Indigenous peoples in independent countries. All the independent countries of Latin America and the Caribbean of that time ratified this convention. Since the 1960s they started with the recognition of the first Indigenous land claims since the colonial era. In the year 1989 the ILO made the Convention 169; the convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which updates the ILO 107 of 1957. In this convention was also the recognition of the very close and important relationship between land and identity, or cultural identity very important. Today, this convention has been ratified by 15 Latin American and Caribbean countries. Even in countries where it has been ratified, limited implementation has led to conflicts over indigenous land rights such as the Escobal mine protests in Guatemala, [12] protection of Yasuní Oil in Ecuador, [13] and the conflict between the Saramaka and Suriname [14] —to name a few.

New Zealand

Indigenous land rights were recognised in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi made between the British Crown and various Māori chiefs. The Treaty is riddled with translational errors that places more power in the hands of the Crown in one translation and the Māori people in another. [15] In the context of land rights, the Māori text allowed for the Māori to retain ownership of prized possessions such as lands and forests for as long as they wished. [16] Despite this, the Crown repeatedly breached the Treaty, with violations dating back to the 1840s. [16] Famously, the Native Land Court was established after the Treaty as a governmental body that was to provide a way in which lands in Māori customary ownership could be converted to Crown-granted freeholds, [17] a direct breach to the Treaty. Unrest between the Māori and the Crown continued into the 19th and 20th centuries, including a series of wars detailed in a book called The New Zealand Wars .

While the Treaty itself has often been ignored according to historians, [18] in 1975—as the fulfillment of a political promise—the New Zealand government established the Waitangi Tribunal. [18] The Tribunal was established as a commission to monitor the Court, ensuring there would be no breaches of the Treaty from then onward. [18] The establishment of the Tribunal is a landmark in the rights of Māori people, both socially and in terms of land tenure.

By settling an allegation which they've agreed is justified, that the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi, they are enabling both the Crown and the Māori to get over that breakdown in the past Hon Justice Matthew Palmer, QC (2017)

Additionally, New Zealand courts have usually accepted the existence of native title. Controversies over Indigenous land rights have tended to revolve around the means by which Māori lost ownership, rather than whether they had ownership in the first place.

South Africa

South Africa has had a particularly publicized relationship between its settler community and the indigenous population. Beginning with the Native Land Act of 1913 (also known as the Banta Land Act or Black Land Act), the country was essentially divided along racial lines. The majority of the land was reserved for the white population although the black population, the Natives, made a majority of the county's overall population. [19] The black South Africans were confined to reserves or Bantustans and could not purchase land outside of those areas. [20] These areas were often arid and not suitable for agriculture which led to severe socio-economic consequences for the Native population. There are a variety of possible motives for passing this act, some of which include wanting to limit African squatters and encouragement from mining companies, although it is not known as to what the reason was. [20]

The Act had profound and lasting effects on land ownership, access, and economic opportunities for black South Africans. It was one of the early legislative measures that institutionalized racial segregation, setting the stage for the more comprehensive apartheid policies that were implemented later in the 20th century. [21] It was not until the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 that the Native Land Act and other discriminatory legislation was addressed and attempted to be resolved. This new act set in place a process and identified who would qualify for the restitutions. [22] The general history of South Africa is heavily tied to the governing body's relationship to its Native population.

United States

"Next to shooting indigenous peoples, the surest way to kill us is to separate us from our part of the Earth."

Hayden Burgess, Hawaii [23]

The foundational decision for Aboriginal title in the United States is Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), authored by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall's rulings are an important contributor to Native law and have been termed the Marshall Trilogy, referring to Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). [24]

In Johnson v. McIntosh, under the doctrine of discovery, it was ruled that Native Americans did not own their land, but rather had occupancy rights. [25] Thus, Native Americans could not sale land unless it was to the United States. [24] Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) was another setback for Native rights, with a ruling that deduced the Cherokee Nation to a "dependent domestic nation" that was "under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States." [24] A year later, however, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Marshall's language and view of the Cherokee nation changed significantly. In it, he referred to the Cherokee nation as a nation and acknowledged that treaties are formed between two sovereign states. [24] In the years to follow, the Supreme Court has sometimes endorsed one viewpoint and at other times the other, as there is a big difference between the first two cases and the last.

In 1871, through the Appropriations Act of 1871, treaty making between different Native American tribes and the U.S. government ended. Although treaty-making had come to an end, previous treaty rights were to be followed still. [26] The Supreme Court has faced considerable controversy in cases dealing with natural resource treaties. Native Americans in the United States have largely been relegated to Indian reservations managed by tribes under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the case, Winters v. United States (1908), it was established that reservations are to be prioritized rights to water over non-native use. [27] Contested treaty cases have not always been ruled to the favor of Native Americans, however; an example is the United States v. Dion (1986) case.

Native Americans in the United States have largely been relegated to Indian reservations managed by tribes under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Civil law

Brazil

Indigenous land rights in Brazil is and has been an ongoing struggle for indigenous Brazilians, they have been treated as a minority group with no rights and are discriminated against. Discrimination against indigenous people has been present since colonization. In 1910 the Indian Protection Service was created due to the large amounts of violence inflicted on indigenous people, however this policy was ineffective and corrupt and was replaced by the National Indian Foundation in 1967. This policy worked to integrate indigenous people and effectively took their land so the government could prosper from its resources. In 1983 more demarcation laws were put in place, these laws prevented white settlers from stealing indigenous lands and further specified the borders of indigenous lands. However other state agencies were allowed to specify borders which was heavily influenced by the mining industry sectors. Only 14% of lands ended up being demarcated and lots of land was lost to mining companies. [28]

In 1988 Brazil adopted a new constitution, it said that Indigenous lands and culture would be protected. This bill allowed indigenous people to safely live in their territory without fear of their land or resources being taken. However this bill ended up being far less successful than it originally promised, the Brazilian government was supposed to demarcate all indigenous territories by 1993 but over those five years they only demarcated 50% of the territories. [29]

By 2017 still little action had been taken on securing the land rights of indigenous people in brazil. Brazil's president in 2017 declared a cutoff date on indigenous land. The bill stated that if the indigenous people were not in their territory before the 1988 cutoff, it was not their land to demarcate. 27 indigenous territories demarcation was suspended because of this cut off, even though the reason they couldn't declare their territory before 1988 was due to the government or because they couldn't prove they previously resided there. [30] In February 2020 president Jair Bolsonaro proposed bill 191/2020, which will allow Indigenous territories to be opened up to mining and hydroelectric generation. [31] This bill has caused push back from indigenous communities, it threatens the health of their land and the safety of their people. [32]

Mexico

The years after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 saw agrarian reforms (1917–1934), and in article 27 of the Mexican Constitution the encomienda system was abolished, and the right to communal land for traditional communities was affirmed. Thus the ejido-system was created, which in practice should comprise the power of private investments by foreign corporations and absentee landlords, and entitled the indigenous population to a piece of land to work and live on.
Since the 1980s and 1990s the focus of Mexico's economic policy concentrated more on industrial development and attracting foreign capital. The Salinas government initiated a process of privatization of land (through the PROCEDE-program). In 1992, as a (pre)condition for Mexico for entering the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the US and Canada, art.4 and art.27 of the Constitution were modified, by means of which it became possible to privatize communal ejido land via allotment or other means. This undermined the basic security of Indigenous communities to aboriginal title.[ citation needed ]

Customary law

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 2)</i> 1992 High Court of Australia decision which recognised native title

Mabo v Queensland is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. It was brought by Eddie Mabo and others against the State of Queensland, and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty</span> Express agreement between nations under international law

A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement concluded by sovereign states in international law. International organizations can also be party to an international treaty. A treaty is binding under international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indigenous peoples</span> Peoples who identify as Indigenous and have a special attachment to their traditional territory

There is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples, although in the 21st century the focus has been on self-identification, cultural difference from other groups in a state, a special relationship with their traditional territory, and an experience of subjugation and discrimination under a dominant cultural model.

<i>Terra nullius</i> International law term for unclaimed land

Terra nullius is a Latin expression meaning "nobody's land". Since the nineteenth century it has occasionally been used in international law as a principle to justify claims that territory may be acquired by a state's occupation of it. There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil, four pockets of land near the Danube due to the Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and parts of Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Indigenous sovereignty</span> Concept and political movement regarding land ownership by Indigenous peoples in Australia

Australian Indigenous sovereignty, also recently termed Blak sovereignty, encompasses the various rights claimed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within Australia. Such rights are said to derive from Indigenous peoples' occupation and ownership of Australia prior to colonisation and through their continuing spiritual connection to land. Indigenous sovereignty is not recognised in the Australian Constitution or under Australian law.

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

Native title is the set of rights, recognised by Australian law, held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with the Native Title Act 1993.

Paul Gerrard McHugh is a New Zealand academic lawyer. He teaches at the University of Cambridge where he is a Professor in Law and Legal History and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Aboriginal law</span> Canadian law regarding indigenous people

Canadian Aboriginal law is the body of law of Canada that concerns a variety of issues related to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Canadian Aboriginal Law is different from Canadian Indigenous law: In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups. Aboriginal peoples as a collective noun is a specific term of art used in legal documents, including the Constitution Act, 1982, and includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. Canadian Aboriginal law provides certain constitutionally recognized rights to land and traditional practices. Canadian Aboriginal Law enforces and interprets certain treaties between the Crown and Indigenous people, and manages much of their interaction. A major area of Aboriginal law involves the duty to consult and accommodate.

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.

Indigenous rights are those rights that exist in recognition of the specific condition of indigenous peoples. This includes not only the most basic human rights of physical survival and integrity, but also the rights over their land, language, religion, and other elements of cultural heritage that are a part of their existence and identity as a people. This can be used as an expression for advocacy of social organizations, or form a part of the national law in establishing the relation between a government and the right of self-determination among its indigenous people, or in international law as a protection against violation of indigenous rights by actions of governments or groups of private interests.

Aboriginal child protection describes services designed specifically for protection of the children of "aboriginal" or indigenous peoples, particularly where they are a minority within a country. This may differ at international, national, legal, cultural, social, professional and program levels from general or mainstream child protection services. Fundamental human rights are a source of many of the differences. Aboriginal child protection may be an integral or a distinct aspect of mainstream services or it may be exercised formally or informally by an aboriginal people itself. There has been controversy about systemic genocide in child protection systems enforced with aboriginal children in post-colonial societies.

The Indigenous Law Centre (ILC), formerly the Aboriginal Law Research Unit and Aboriginal Law Centre, is part of the Law Faculty at the University of New South Wales. It develops and coordinates research, teaching and information services in the multi-disciplinary area of Indigenous peoples and the law, and publishes two major journals: the Australian Indigenous Law Review and the Indigenous Law Bulletin. It is the only Indigenous law research centre in Australia.

Pan-Indianism is a philosophical and political approach promoting unity and, to some extent, cultural homogenization, among different Indigenous groups in the Americas regardless of tribal distinctions and cultural differences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal Provisional Government</span>

The Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG) is an Indigenous Australian independence movement in Australia.

Ancestral domain or ancestral lands are the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The term differs from indigenous land rights, Aboriginal title or Native Title by directly indicating relationship to land based on ancestry, while domain indicates relationships beyond material lands and territories, including spiritual and cultural aspects that may not be acknowledged in land titles and legal doctrine about trading ownership.

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is aimed to establish bottom-up participation and consultation of an indigenous population prior to the beginning of development on ancestral land or using resources in an indigenous population's territory. Indigenous people have a special connection to their land and resources and inhabit one fifth of the Earth's surface. Such areas are environmentally rich in both renewable and non-renewable resources. The collective ownership style of most Indigenous Peoples conflicts with the modern global market and its continuous need for resources and land. To protect Indigenous Peoples' rights, international human rights law has created processes and standards to safeguard their way of life and to encourage participation in the decision-making process. One such method is the process of FPIC. There is criticism that many international conventions and treaties require consultation, not consent, which is a much higher threshold. Without the requirement for consent, indigenous people cannot veto government projects and developments in their area that directly affect their lives and cultures. FPIC allows Indigenous Peoples to have the right to self-determination and self-governance in national and local government decision-making processes over projects that concern their lives and resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of New Zealand</span> National court system

The judiciary of New Zealand is responsible for the system of courts that interprets and applies the laws of New Zealand. It has four primary functions: to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution; to deliver authoritative rulings on the meaning and application of legislation; to develop case law; and to uphold the rule of law, personal liberty and human rights. The judiciary is supported in its work by an executive department, the Ministry of Justice.

References

  1. ↑ Bouma; et al. (2010). Religious Diversity in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: National Case Studies. Springer.
  2. ↑ "Indigenous & Community Land Rights". Land Portal. Land Portal Foundation. Archived from the original on 26 June 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2017.
  3. ↑ Gilbert, Jérémie. (2006). Indigenous peoples' land rights under international law: from victims to actors. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers. ISBN   978-90-474-3130-5. OCLC   719377481.
  4. ↑ "Mabo and Native Title The end of Terra Nullius, the beginning of Native Title". Australians together.
  5. ↑ "Eddie Koiki Mabo". aiatsis. 15 August 2022.
  6. 1 2 "THE MABO CASE AND THE NATIVE TITLE ACT". No. Australian bureau of statistics. Australian bureau of statistics. 1995.
  7. ↑ Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada's Constitution , retrieved 28 November 2023
  8. ↑ Ryser, Rudolph C. (10 September 2012). Indigenous Nations and Modern States. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203139882. ISBN   978-1-136-49447-5.
  9. ↑ The historic Delgamuukw land claims case: 25 years later , retrieved 28 November 2023
  10. ↑ Garcia, Louis (2015). Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia: Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Resurgence, and the Politics of Recognition (Thesis). Carleton University. doi: 10.22215/etd/2015-11064 .
  11. ↑ "Japan: New Ainu Law Becomes Effective". Library of Congress .
  12. ↑ Bull, Benedicte; Aguilar-Stoen, Mariel, eds. (13 November 2014). Environmental politics in Latin America: elite dynamics, the left tide and sustainable development. ISBN   978-1-317-65379-0. OCLC   1100656471.
  13. ↑ "Ecuador Votes to Keep Yasuní Oil in the Ground in Historic Referendum". NACLA. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  14. ↑ Price, Richard (31 December 2011). Rainforest Warriors. doi:10.9783/9780812203721. ISBN   978-0-8122-4300-0.
  15. ↑ Hill, Richard S. (1 October 2011). "The Treaty of Waitangi Companion: Maori and Pakeha from Tasman to Today". Ethnohistory. 58 (4): 741–743. doi:10.1215/00141801-1333760. ISSN   0014-1801.
  16. 1 2 Harris, Aroha (21 June 2017). "Reconciliation, Representation and Indigeneity: 'Biculturalism' in Aotearoa New Zealand". The Journal of New Zealand Studies (24). doi: 10.26686/jnzs.v0i24.4060 . ISSN   2324-3740.
  17. ↑ Young G. Custom and the native land court. Yearbook of New Zealand jurisprudence. 2012;13/14:213-223.
  18. 1 2 3 E oho! A short history of the Waitangi Tribunal — Where to from here? , retrieved 24 October 2023
  19. ↑ Beinart, William; Delius, Peter (4 July 2014). "The Historical Context and Legacy of the Natives Land Act of 1913". Journal of Southern African Studies. 40 (4): 667–688. doi:10.1080/03057070.2014.930623. ISSN   0305-7070. S2CID   144614158.
  20. 1 2 Feinberg, Harvey M. (1993). "The 1913 Natives Land Act in South Africa: Politics, Race, and Segregation in the Early 20th Century". The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 26 (1): 65–109. doi:10.2307/219187. ISSN   0361-7882. JSTOR   219187.
  21. ↑ Walker, Cherryl (4 July 2014). "Critical Reflections on South Africa's 1913 Natives Land Act and its Legacies: Introduction". Journal of Southern African Studies. 40 (4): 655–665. doi:10.1080/03057070.2014.931059. ISSN   0305-7070. S2CID   144753367.
  22. ↑ Maloka, Tumo (2021), "Balancing Land Restitution and Public Interest in South African Socio-Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal of the Restitution of Land Rights Act", The New Political Economy of Land Reform in South Africa, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 199–216, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51129-6_11, ISBN   978-3-030-51128-9, S2CID   236701314 , retrieved 25 November 2023
  23. ↑ Eede, Joanna (2009). We are One: A Celebration of Tribal Peoples. Quadrille Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84400-729-5.
  24. 1 2 3 4 Robertson, Lyndsay G. (1999). "Justice Henry Baldwin's "Lost Opinion" in Worcester v. Georgia". Journal of Supreme Court History. 24 (1): 50–75. doi:10.1353/sch.1999.0023. ISSN   1540-5818.
  25. ↑ Gallo, Marcus (1 April 2015). "Buying America from the Indians: Johnson v. McIntosh and the History of Native Land Rights and The Trail of Broken Treaties: Diplomacy in Indian Country from Colonial Times to Present". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. 82 (2): 193–197. doi:10.5325/pennhistory.82.2.0193. ISSN   0031-4528.
  26. ↑ Helfrich, Joel T.; Oberg, Michael Leroy; Roberts, Alaina E.; Reed, Julie L.; Bruyneel, Kevin (April 2021). "No More Nations Within Nations: Indigenous Sovereignty after the End of Treaty-Making in 1871". The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 20 (2): 325–329. doi:10.1017/s1537781421000141. ISSN   1537-7814. S2CID   233340732.
  27. ↑ "Winters v. United States (1908)", Encyclopedia of Politics of the American West, 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20037 United States: CQ Press, 2013, doi:10.4135/9781452276076.n408, ISBN   9781608719099 , retrieved 30 October 2023{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  28. ↑ Carvalho, Georgia O. (2000). "The Politics of Indigenous Land Rights in Brazil". Bulletin of Latin American Research. 19 (4): 461–478. ISSN   0261-3050. JSTOR   3339531.
  29. ↑ "Indigenous Rights in Brazil". saiic.nativeweb.org. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  30. ↑ "Brazil: Reject Anti-Indigenous Rights Bill". Human Rights Watch. 24 August 2021. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  31. ↑ "Brazil Congress fast-tracks 'death package' bill to mine on Indigenous lands". Mongabay Environmental News. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  32. ↑ "Bolsonaro Threatens the Indigenous Right to Be | Amazon Watch". 20 February 2020. Retrieved 24 April 2022.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.