Treaties and re-setting the colonial relationship: Lessons for Australia from the Treaty of Waitangi

Ethnicities ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 146879682199986
Author(s):  
Dominic O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
Australian State ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
First Peoples ◽  
Egalitarian Justice

Colonial hegemony distinguishes relationships between the Australian state and Indigenous nations. British government was violently established and there was no accommodation with the Indigenous populations to allow settlement to proceed, as occurred through treaties in Canada and New Zealand. Indigenous arguments for treaties in Australia are, however, well established. Notwithstanding some Commonwealth and state and territory governments considering such agreements over the past 40 years, none have been concluded, and more modest forms of recognition have been alternatively proposed. In 2015, following extensive Indigenous advocacy, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition appointed a Referendum Council to consult on an amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution to recognise Australia’s first peoples. The recommendation of a Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission to oversee truth telling and agreements to allow ‘coming together after a struggle’ suggested a transformative ambition beyond the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition’s expectations. Makarrata does not stipulate treaties as an ideal form of agreement, but in raising the possibility, the Council added to the concept’s political momentum. This article discusses the place of treaties in contemporary Australian discourse, including treaty negotiations that are in progress in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. It uses examples from New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi to discuss their possibilities and limits in Australia. From these examples, two overarching arguments are made. Firstly, that treaties are potentially transformative, not because they may settle historical grievances, but because their required mutual recognition of each party’s enduring political standing means that they define ongoing, just terms of association. Secondly, the substantively different political arrangements that they presume mean that they are not merely instruments of egalitarian justice and are instead concerned with the distribution of political authority – Indigenous authority over their affairs and through a distinctive and culturally contextualised state citizenship.

Interview with Janez Lenarčič

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Position ◽  
Council Presidency

Janez Lenarčič is currently serving as Commissioner for Crisis Management in the European Commission, a mandate he took up in December 2019. In this capacity, he is responsible for EU civil protection as well as humanitarian aid. Mr Lenarčič served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the European Union (EU) in Brussels from 2016 to 2019. From 2014 to 2016, he held the Secretary of State position in the cabinet of the Slovenian Prime Minister. His previous experience also includes the position of Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, in Warsaw, from 2008 to 2014. He has also served as Secretary of State for European Affairs, including representing Slovenia during the Lisbon Treaty negotiations in 2007 and later representing the Slovenian EU Council Presidency to the European Parliament in 2008. In 2002 and 2003 he held the position of State Secretary in the cabinet of the Slovenian Prime Minister, after which he served as Slovenian Ambassador to the OSCE. In 2005, he was also Chairman of the Permanent Council of the OSCE in Vienna. In 2000 he served as Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the following year he became the Diplomatic Adviser to the then Slovenian Prime Minister. Between 1994 and 1999 he was posted to Slovenia's Permanent Representation to the United Nations (UN) in New York, where he also served as the alternate representative of Slovenia on the UN Security Council. Mr Lenarčič holds a degree in international law from Ljubljana University.

scholarly journals Cosmology and Native North American Mystical Traditions

Théologiques ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-142
Author(s):  
John A. Grim
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
North America ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
North American ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Native Communities ◽  
Native North American ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
First Peoples ◽  
Dynamic Performances

ABSTRACT Different indigenous nations in North America provide examples of mystical participation in the processes of creation. Some observers dismiss native communities as fragmented or romantically reimaged as "ecological Indians", yet, the tenacity of their religious insights deserve attention. Intellectually framed in images of interactions between specific peoples with particular geographical places, these images are also embedded in dynamic performances. This paper presents a comparative study of mystical paths among First Peoples in which personal and communal symbols fuse psychic, somatic, and social energies with local landscapes. Experienced as synesthetic intuitions, these images are made more conscious in rituals. These dynamic performances link words, actions, sounds, sights, and sensory observations. Ritualized expressions of native mystical life are themselves interpretive reflections back upon the personal, communal, spiritual, and ecological realms from which they emerge. Native American religious ways, thus, are lifeway complexes that address the limits and problems of the human condition, and foster mature mystical understanding.

scholarly journals Reflection, Acknowledgement, and Justice: A Framework for Indigenous-Protected Area Reconciliation

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chance Finegan
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Protected Area Management ◽  
Knowledge Use ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
Parks Canada

Protected areas have been both tools and beneficiaries of settler colonialism in places such as Canada, Australia, and the United States, to the detriment of Indigenous nations. While some agencies, such as Parks Canada, increasingly partner with Indigenous nations through co-management agreements or on Indigenous knowledge use in protected area management, I believe such efforts fall short of reconciliation. For protected areas to reconcile with Indigenous Peoples, they must not incorporate Indigeneity into existing settler-colonial structures. Instead, agencies must commit to an Indigenous-centered project of truth telling, acknowledging harm, and providing for justice. I begin this article by outlining what is meant by reconciliation. I then argue for protected area-Indigenous reconciliation. I conclude with a framework for Indigenous–settler reconciliation within protected areas.

scholarly journals Bilateral Investment Treaty Negotiations between India and U.S: Problems and Prospects

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
Technology Control ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Control Regime ◽  
Australian Company ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

<p><em>Relationship between U.S. and India is at the best phase, especially after former unequivocal support in NSG (Nuclear Supply Group) and helping inclusion in MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime). The relationship between two oldest and biggest democracies has matured under the headship of Mr. Barak Obama as President and Mr. Nardendra Modi as prime minister. In the recent visit of Indian prime minister, the warm gesture shown by U.S. congress members have further cemented the strength of tie up between two nations. However, despite great chemistry between two nation and its leaders from last many years, both have failed to enter into Bilateral Investment Treaty. India is having Bilateral Investment treaty with more than 80 countries including U.K. and Russia, of which 72 treaties are operational. <a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a>  U.S. is having Bilateral Investment treaties with more than 46  countries including Russia and Bangladesh.<a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a> Since 2008, the two countries have been engaged in sporadic discussions to conclude the Investment treaty. Negotiations on its wording, based on each country’s revised model treaty texts, will begin soon. Both the leaders Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S President Barack Obama affirmed their mutual commitment to facilitating increased bilateral investment flows and fostering an open and predictable climate for investment many a times , But consensus has not been reached till today on certain term and conditions.   In the absence of BIT , the rights of investors of both the countries are at the stake. Further, MFN or nationality treatment clause cannot be invoked or granted in the event of any regulatory or other action. Obligations imposed by BIT to protect interest of foreign investors are absent. Further, after losing its first Investment Treaty Arbitration (ITA) claim in 2012 against White Industries, an Australian company and pending 17 cases, India has recently adopted new BIT in 2015 . It also has reflections of pending claims of Vodafone and other cases involving Intellectual Property Rights( Hereinafter refereed as IPR) and the cases of compulsory licences.   </em></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div><p><em><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Details Avaialble at <a href="http://www.finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp">http://www.finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp</a>.</em></p></div><div><p><em><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Details Avialable at <a href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/117402.htm">http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/117402.htm</a>.</em></p></div></div>

scholarly journals Obstacles and Possibilities for Peace between Israel and Palestine

2020 ◽  
pp. 33-46
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
West Bank ◽  
Arab State ◽  
Jewish State ◽  
Concrete Barriers ◽  
West Bank And Gaza ◽  
The Many ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
East Jerusalem

There have been various obstacles to resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the United Nations resolved to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Some of these obstacles have been psychological, with both sides contesting the identity and narrative of the other. More concrete barriers have been the many settlements built by Israel in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, totaling today over 500,000 Israeli settlers. The article addresses these and other obstacles, but it also notes the important changes that have occurred, making resolution of the conflict possible. These include the pragmatic 1988 PLO decision to create a state next to the state of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem; the exchange of letters of mutual recognition between Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin that preceded the 1993 Oslo Principles, and the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

Restorative Justice

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine van Wormer
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Interpersonal Violence ◽  
School Bullying ◽  
Family Group ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
The Individual

This article defines restorative justice and describes the models most relevant to social work. These include victim–offender conferencing (sometimes incorrectly referred to as mediation), family group conferencing, healing circles, and community reparations. Restorative justice is an umbrella term for a victim-oriented method of righting a wrong, promoting healing following a conflict, including war, and/or providing a safety in the aftermath of violence (for example, child abuse). Such restorative strategies have their roots in the rituals of indigenous populations and modern-day religious practices, as stated by restorative justice pioneer, Howard Zehr. Restorative justice, as defined by the Social Work Dictionary is “a non-adversarial approach usually monitored by a trained professional who seeks to offer justice to the individual victim, the offender, and the community, all of whom have been harmed by a crime or other form of wrongdoing.” This emerging model for resolving conflict and/or righting a wrong focuses on repairing the harm done by an offense by involving the victim, the offender, and the community. This article identifies resources on restorative justice theories and strategies with special relevance to social workers and to mental health professionals, as well as school and correctional counselors. At the micro level, restorative justice is played out as conferencing between victims and offenders—for example, by way of family group conferences and healing circles. At the macro or societal level, restorative justice takes the form of reparations or truth commissions—to compensate for the harm that has been done, for example, when mass persecutions of people have taken place. The magnitude of the situations covered under the rubric of restorative justice ranges from interpersonal violence to school bullying to mass kidnappings to full-scale terrorism and warfare. Restorative justice refers not only to a number of strategies for resolving conflicts peacefully but also to a political campaign of sorts to advocate for the rights of victims and for compassionate treatment of offenders. Instead of incarceration, for example, the option of community service coupled with substance abuse treatment might be favored. From the offender’s standpoint, accountability and truth-telling are stressed, as the offender typically offers to make amends for the harm that was done. From the victim’s standpoint, a key theme is empowerment, through receiving an apology from the wrongdoer and receiving the support of caring participants.

First Peoples, First Prohibitionists

2021 ◽  
pp. 257-278
Author(s):  
Mark Lawrence Schrad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
South Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
First Peoples ◽  
State Finance ◽  
Little Turtle

Armed with a new appreciation for prohibitionism as an anti-imperialist, anti-predatory-capitalist movement for community self-determination, Part III returns us to the United States, where prohibitionism goes back to the very first colonization of North America. Indeed, America’s first prohibitionists were its first peoples: battling against the “white man’s wicked water,” through which their sovereignty was stripped, in the same way as indigenous populations in Africa, South Asia, and Australia. Chapter 9 highlights the role of Miami chief Little Turtle in urging President Thomas Jefferson to enact, in 1802, the first federal prohibition of the trafficking of liquor to native tribes, even while liquor excises had become the primary pillar of state finance of the young republic.

scholarly journals Data as a Strategic Resource: Self-determination, Governance, and the Data Challenge for Indigenous Nations in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Carroll Rainie ◽  
Jennifer Lee Schultz ◽  
Eileen Briggs ◽  
Patricia Riggs ◽  
Nancy Lynn Palmanteer-Holder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
Socioeconomic Data ◽  
Inform Decision Making

Data about Indigenous populations in the United States are inconsistent and irrelevant. Federal and state governments and researchers direct most collection, analysis, and use of data about U.S. Indigenous populations. Indigenous Peoples’ justified mistrust further complicates the collection and use of these data. Nonetheless, tribal leaders and communities depend on these data to inform decision making. Reliance on data that do not reflect tribal needs, priorities, and self-conceptions threatens tribal self-determination. Tribal data sovereignty through governance of data on Indigenous populations is long overdue. This article provides two case studies of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and their demographic and socioeconomic data initiatives to create locally and culturally relevant data for decision making.

scholarly journals Dark Pasts in the Landscape:

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 31-45
Author(s):  
Jenny Gregory
Keyword(s):  
Social Conflict ◽  
Electric Energy ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Symbolic Power ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
The Past ◽  
First Peoples ◽  
History Of

In an era of reconciliation and truth-telling, many have questioned the symbolic power of statues. A storm of controversy across the globe galvanised an electric energy in which many statues were damaged or toppled. Statues became lightning rods for social conflict. This article explores earlier clashes over statues in Perth in the late 1970s and 1980s, revealing that while the statue of a colonial figure was untouchable despite the dark side of his history, the statue of an Aboriginal leader erected to recognise Western Australia’s First Peoples was decapitated. The article concludes with a discussion of methods for dealing with the dark history of these silent sentinels from the past.

scholarly journals SEEDS of Indigenous Population Health Data Linkage

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Rowe ◽  
Stephanie Russo Carroll ◽  
Chyloe Healy ◽  
Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear ◽  
Jennifer D Walker
Keyword(s):  
Population Health ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Health Care Policy ◽  
Indigenous Population ◽  
Data Linkage ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Data Governance ◽  
Indigenous Nations

IntroductionGlobally, the ways that Indigenous data are collected, used, stored, shared, and analyzed are advancing through Indigenous data governance movements. However, these discussions do not always include the increasingly sensitive nature of linking Indigenous population health (IPH) data. During the International Population Data Linkage Network Conference in September of 2018, Indigenous people from three countries (Canada, New Zealand, and the United States) gathered and set the tone for discussions around Indigenous-driven IPH data linkage. ObjectivesCentering IPH data linkage and research priorities at the conference led to budding discussions from diverse Indigenous populations to share and build on current IPH data linkage themes. This paper provides a braided summary of those discussions which resulted in the SEEDS principles for use when linking IPH data. MethodsDuring the Conference, two sessions and a keynote were Indigenous-led and hosted by international collaborators that focused on regional perspectives on IPH data linkage. A retrospective document analysis of notes, discussions, and artistic contributions gathered from the conference resulted in a summary of shared common approaches to the linkage of IPH data. ResultsThe SEEDS Principles emerge as collective report that outlines a living and expanding set of guiding principles that: 1) prioritizes Indigenous Peoples' right to Self-determination; 2) makes space for Indigenous Peoples to Exercise sovereignty; 3) adheres to Ethical protocols; 4) acknowledges and respects Data stewardship and governance, and; 5) works to Support reconciliation between Indigenous nations and settler states. ConclusionEach of the elements of SEEDS need to be enacted together to create a positive data linkage environment. When implemented together, the SEEDS Principles can lead to more meaningful research and improved Indigenous data governance. The mindful implementation of SEEDS could lead to better measurements of health progress through linkages that are critical to enhancing health care policy and improving health and wellness outcomes for Indigenous nations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document