Why Canadian Indian Law Is Important to Alaskans, Why Indian Law in Alaska Is Important to Canada
dc.contributor.author | Conn, Stephen | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-19T20:46:32Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-19T20:46:32Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1990-04 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Conn, Stephen. (1990). "Why Canadian Indian Law Is Important to Alaskans, Why Indian Law in Alaska Is Important to Canada." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 32nd annual conference of the Western Regional Science Association, Portland, OR, Apr 1990. | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | JC 9007.02 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11122/10741 | |
dc.description | This paper revises and expands upon a previous paper: Conn, Stephen. (1989). "From Land Rights to Sovereignty: Curious Parallels between Alaskan and Canadian Indigenous Peoples". Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Canadian Studies in the U.S., San Francisco, Nov 1989. (https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/10740) | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Federal policy governing indigenous peoples in Canada has been marked by repeated glances south and west (at Alaska) as it has been formed through parliamentary edict, case law and Constitutional entrenchment. Although rooted in a common Crown policy, the discrete history of Canadian policy has diverged from American practice even as the country's historical and its political development have diverged. Unlike United States policy, the underpinnings of Canadian Indian law as it related to aboriginal title land rights and the limits and potential of tribal sovereignty are only now coming into focus. This belated articulation of Indian rights parallels similar developments in Alaska where land rights and tribal rights are only now being defined. In both Alaska and Canada, hunting and fishing rights and tribal governance are political and legal matters whose impact on resource development and control by provinces and states make neat application of older Indian law concepts less predictable. Cases in either place offer guidance to federal courts in either country within a modern debate over public land rights. The author suggests that attorneys in each place monitor case law and legislation only now emerging. | en_US |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract / [Introduction] / States and Provinces / What Alaskans Discovered / The Territorial and Developmental Imperative / Tribal Models Compared / Subsistence / Government Services / Footnotes / Bibliography | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage | en_US |
dc.subject | Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) | en_US |
dc.subject | Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) | en_US |
dc.subject | Alaska Natives | en_US |
dc.subject | bush justice | en_US |
dc.subject | Canada | en_US |
dc.subject | Canadian First Nations | en_US |
dc.subject | Indian law | en_US |
dc.subject | rural justice | en_US |
dc.subject | sovereignty | en_US |
dc.subject | subsistence | en_US |
dc.title | Why Canadian Indian Law Is Important to Alaskans, Why Indian Law in Alaska Is Important to Canada | en_US |
dc.type | Working Paper | en_US |
refterms.dateFOA | 2020-03-07T01:26:34Z |