• The Aborigine in Comparative Law: Subnational Report on Alaska Natives

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-08)
      This paper describes the current state of aboriginal rights in Alaska and the impact of federal and state laws and policies on Alaska Native political and legal rights, tribal status, self-determination, and access to tribal lands. Topics covered include the legal determination of Alaska Native identity, the legal status of Alaska Native groups, Alaska Native land rights, sovereignty and self-government, subsistence, recognition of family and kinship structures, the criminal justice system in rural Alaska, customary versus formal legal process, and human rights and equality before the law.
    • From Land Rights to Sovereignty: Curious Parallels between Alaskan and Canadian Indigenous Peoples

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1989-11)
      Alaska Natives and Canadian aboriginal peoples have been late bloomers in securing land claims based on aboriginal title and its extinguishment. While the reasons for this delay relate to the discrete development of Indian policy in each country, both groups now find themselves seeking explicit governmental authority to regulate this domain. Despite the juridical premise that only those groups capable of controlling land have aboriginal claims to cede and/or extinguish, modern groups must secure federal confirmation of their sovereign powers. Barriers in each country are similar; so are the strategies employed.
    • Retribalization as a Strategy for Achievement of Group and Individual Social Security in Alaska Native Villages — with a Special Focus on Subsistence [paper]

      Conn, Stephen; Langdon, Steve J. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-06-02)
      Alaska Native groups have adopted a strategy of seeking general welfare, including social security, through retribalization — a term of dual meaning discussed in this paper. The paper aims to describe the historical developments leading to the adoption of this strategy, explain its nature and the various forms which it takes, and assess its potential for the achievement of the general welfare of Alaska Natives.
    • State Enforcement of Alaska Native Tribal Law: The Congressional Mandate of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

      Conn, Stephen; Garber, Bart Kaloa (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1989-10-27)
      Law journals, newspapers, and the courts all document Native unrest and dissatisfaction with state management of Native subsistence lifestyles. It is the thesis of this paper that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires the state to discover and incorporate community-derived tribal law — customs and traditions regarding the taking and gathering of wild, renewable resources — as the applicable minimum federal standard to the extent that conservation of the resource permits.
    • Why Canadian Indian Law Is Important to Alaskans, Why Indian Law in Alaska Is Important to Canada

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1990-04)
      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.