RésuméL'État canadien se présente comme tolérant, anti-colonial et auto-critique. Cependant, la justification légale de la Couronne pour acquérir souveraineté et juridiction sur les Peuples autochtones et leurs terres s'appuie sur la doctrine coloniale de la terra nullius qui est fondée sur le postulat que les peuples indigènes étaient inférieurs au point de permettre à la Couronne de présumer que leurs terres étaient inoccupées. L'article analyse comment la doctrine de la terra nullius a fini par s'appliquer en droit canadien et ses limites en tant que proposition acceptable dans la contemporanéité. Dans un second temps, il évalue des alternatives proposées dans des milieux variés pour déterminer si la conceptualisation et la mise en œuvre d'une relation politique et légale entre les Premières nations et le Canada qui serait post-coloniale dans sa perspective et pratique, est possible.
The authors articulate the basic elements of two competing theories of aboriginal right. The first, a contingent rights approach, requires state action for the existence of aboriginal rights. This approach dominated early judicial pronouncements on the nature of aboriginal rights. The second, an inherent rights approach, views aboriginal rights as inherent in the nature of aboriginality. This approach came to be embraced by the judiciary in cases addressing the nature of aboriginal legal interests prior to the passage of the Constitution Act, 1982. The authors then assess the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Sparrow in light of these two competing theories. In Sparrow, the Court addressed the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and, despite other laudable aspects of the judgment, relied on a contingent theory of aboriginal right and an unquestioned acceptance of Canadian sovereignty. The authors offer two alternative approaches to s. 35(1) based on the overarching value of equality of peoples. As a result, the Court severely curtailed the possibility that s. 35(1) includes an aboriginal right to sovereignty and rendered fragile s. 35(1)'s embrace of a constitutional right to self-government.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.