Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Colonizing the Last Frontier

Bibliographic Data

ID11074998
AuthorsDavid J Bloch (corresponding author)
Year2004
Volume29
Issue1
Pages1
Publication date2004-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Indian Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0094-002X • E-ISSN: 1930-7918
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/20070719
OpenAlexW2280876462
LanguageEN

In Aboriginal Rights and Judicial Wrongs: The Colonization of the Last Frontier, I examine a recent sea-change in federal Indian law that has escaped the notice of scholars. In the light of the divestiture of tribal sovereignty characterizing recent Supreme Court decisions, my article interrogates a contemporary case that rejects the property principle underlying all of federal Indian law itself in favor of a conception of aboriginal title never before countenanced in the United States and long discredited elsewhere. My analysis argues that this new conception traduces 175 years of American precedent and violates international law. I also contend that it vitiates the constitutional separation of powers, in which plenary power over the Indian nations is allocated to Congress, and amounts to a legislative decision by the courts to colonize the nation's last frontier, the ocean, through extinguishment of aboriginal interests therein. My article meticulously critiques the case at issue, Native Village of Eyak v. Trawler Diane Marie, Inc., and its interplay with common law aboriginal title, federal supremacy over the ocean, and the international law of sovereign succession. It draws novelly on English law in respect of the territorial sea and aboriginal title in current and former Commonwealth states, particularly Australia, Canada, and New Zealand but also Southern Nigeria and India. The article also situates the matter in the context of indigenous peoples' rights under international law and deploys the political philosophy of James Tully and Will Kymlicka to evoke the broader discourse of group rights and Rawlsian liberalism. Finally, I conclude it with recommendations: that Eyak be overturned as a doctrinally incorrect and politically indefensible intrusion into congressional prerogative and tribal autonomy; that its contemptible vision of aboriginal title be rejected as having no place in a postcolonial world; and that Congress alternatively fulfill its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff Indians by granting a title commensurate to their claim or providing compensation for the judicial taking of their right of occupation

Common law · Commonwealth · Frontier · Indigenous · Indigenous rights · International law · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · Supreme court · Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law · Law · Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies · Property Rights and Legal Doctrine

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae