Sovereignty

Alfred, Taiaiake

doi:10.2307/j.ctt1dnncqc.5

Cited by 55 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the issue of sovereignty, for instance, this hierarchy has played out through the valorization of sovereignty's stabilizing effects within the society of states, despite its constitution through hierarchies of power and processes of colonial expansion. Similar points have been made by a number of scholars, like Alfred () and Beier (), both of whom contend that the territorial dimensions of sovereignty have been socially constituted through colonial relations. According to Alfred, “The reification of sovereignty in politics today is the result of a triumph of a particular set of ideas over others—no more natural to the world than any other man‐made object” (:46).…”

supporting

confidence: 68%

Sovereignty, Identity, and Indigenous-State Relations at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: A Case of Exclusion by Inclusion

Pearcey

2015

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of civilization has played a central role in the work of the English School. Yet, most English School scholars concern themselves with the role of civilization in defining the relations between the members of international society. The Standard of Civilization stands as a case in point, for most English School scholars have examined this legal principle with reference to its role in defining membership in the society of states. This paper sets out to help us understand the role of the Standard of Civilization in defining relations between state and nonstate societies at the beginning of the twentieth century. It analyzes the Standard of Civilization and its role in defining Indigenous‐state relations and presents a case study analysis of Chief Levi General's diplomatic mission to the League of Nations on behalf of the Six Nations. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of its analysis for the theory and practice of IR, as well as the English School and its analytics.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 68%

Sovereignty, Identity, and Indigenous-State Relations at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: A Case of Exclusion by Inclusion

Pearcey

2015

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given these concerns, many Indigenous peoples have long questioned the viability of working within dominant governance models that “recognized indigenous sovereignty yet always subsumed it to that of the state” (Alfred , p. 35). As Deloria and Lytle (, p. 19) write, self‐determination cannot exist at the “whim of the controlling federal government.” Some Indigenous communities are now exploring opportunities for recovering longstanding Indigenous political traditions in a contemporary context, which Alfred (, p. 40) describes as an “uneven process of reinstituting systems that promote the goals and reinforce the values of indigenous cultures, against the constant efforts of the Canadian and United States governments to maintain the systems of dominance imposed on indigenous communities during the last century.”…”

Section: Historical and Legal Origins: Treatment As A Statementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In international law, self‐determination refers to the right of Indigenous peoples to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (United Nations ). Indigenous self‐determination may also entail rejecting governance models rooted in European cultural values and reinstituting Indigenous governance traditions (Alfred ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Native Water Protection Flows Through Self‐Determination: Understanding Tribal Water Quality Standards and “Treatment as a State”

Diver

2018

Contemporary Water Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For Indigenous communities, protecting traditional lands and waters is of the utmost importance. In the U.S. context, scholars have documented an unfortunate neglect of water quality on tribal lands. Treatment as a State (TAS) provisions, adopted in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, and tribal Water Quality Standards (WQSs) programs are intended to address such problems. Importantly, tribal WQSs may be more stringent than neighboring state standards, and can be used to influence pollution levels coming from upstream, off‐reservation users. Tribes can also develop WQSs that support unique tribal values, including ceremonial and cultural uses of native waters. Yet scholarly debates question whether tribal environmental self‐determination strategies can fully succeed within dominant regulatory structures. Based on a synthesis of the published literature, this article examines tribal WQSs as a case of tribal environmental self‐determination. The author discusses how U.S. tribes pursue WQSs under TAS, program outcomes, and why so few tribes have established WQSs to date. Because most scholarship was found within the legal literature, the author focuses on the legal and political outcomes that arise from tribal WQSs, and analyzes specific opportunities and constraints for program participants. The author also considers how some tribes use WQSs as a “third space” strategy—simultaneously working inside and outside of dominant government structures to advance tribal sovereignty (Bruyneel ). Additional research is needed to understand the diversity of tribal environmental self‐determination strategies that occur through federal regulatory frameworks and under tribal law.

show abstract

“…Within the colonial context, the misrepresentations of Indigenous peoples perpetrated by researchers and evaluators has all too often been used to justify the continued marginalization and exclusion of Indigenous peoples from the resources of society. For example, the correlation between Indigenous practices and adverse social outcomes has been overinterpreted as causation and has repeatedly been used as a pretext for attempting to prevent Indigenous peoples from living their lives in ways that are compatible with their values, traditions, and beliefs (Alfred, ).…”

Section: Why Indigenous Evaluation?mentioning

confidence: 99%