TY - JOUR
T1 - Economic Development through Treaty Reparations in New Zealand and Canada
AU - Tait, Myra J.
AU - Ladner, Kiera L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Tait Myra J. a Ladner Kiera L. b * a Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP , in Winnipeg, Manitoba MyraJTait@gmail.com b University of Manitoba , Department of Political Studies kiera.ladner@umanitoba.ca * Some of the research presented in this article appears in Tait’s LLM thesis, “Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation” (University of Manitoba, 2017), which was supervised by Dr. Lorna Turnbull. This article is also part of an ongoing SSHRC-funded project on comparative law and Indigenous constitutional politics. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at meetings of the International Studies Association (2014) and the New Zealand Political Science Association (2016). The authors would like to thank the journal’s editors and anonymous reviewers, as well as Lorna Turnbull, who commented on previous versions of this article. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. 18 05 2018 04 2018 33 1 61 83 Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2018 2018 Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2018.
PY - 2018/4/1
Y1 - 2018/4/1
N2 - In Canada, Treaty 1 First Nations brought a claim against the Crown for land debt owed to them since 1871. In 2004, Crown land in Winnipeg became available that, according to the terms of the settlement, should have been offered for purchase to Treaty 1 Nations. Similarly, in New Zealand, the Waikato-Tainui claim arose from historical Crown breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. In 1995, a settlement was reached to address the unjust Crown confiscation of Tainui lands. Despite being intended to facilitate the return of traditional territory, compensate for Crown breaches of historic treaties, and indirectly provide opportunity for economic development, in both cases, settlement was met with legal and political challenges. Using a comparative legal analysis, this paper examines how the state continues to use its law-making power to undermine socio-economic development of Indigenous communities in Canada and New Zealand, thereby thwarting opportunity for Indigenous self-determination.
AB - In Canada, Treaty 1 First Nations brought a claim against the Crown for land debt owed to them since 1871. In 2004, Crown land in Winnipeg became available that, according to the terms of the settlement, should have been offered for purchase to Treaty 1 Nations. Similarly, in New Zealand, the Waikato-Tainui claim arose from historical Crown breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. In 1995, a settlement was reached to address the unjust Crown confiscation of Tainui lands. Despite being intended to facilitate the return of traditional territory, compensate for Crown breaches of historic treaties, and indirectly provide opportunity for economic development, in both cases, settlement was met with legal and political challenges. Using a comparative legal analysis, this paper examines how the state continues to use its law-making power to undermine socio-economic development of Indigenous communities in Canada and New Zealand, thereby thwarting opportunity for Indigenous self-determination.
KW - economic development
KW - Kapyong
KW - Treaty 1
KW - treaty implementation
KW - Treaty of Waitangi
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047736289&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/cls.2018.5
DO - 10.1017/cls.2018.5
M3 - Journal Article
AN - SCOPUS:85047736289
SN - 0829-3201
VL - 33
SP - 61
EP - 83
JO - Canadian Journal of Law and Society
JF - Canadian Journal of Law and Society
IS - 1
ER -
