scholarly journals Felix Cohen and the Spanish Moment in Federal Indian Law: A Study in Law, Politics and Historiography

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 419
Author(s):  
Richard P Boast
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Old Spanish ◽  
Spanish Law ◽  
Federal Indian Law ◽  
Legal Writing ◽  
Famous Paper ◽  
Indian Law

One of the best-known discussions of the historical foundations of native title law is Felix Cohen's famous paper on the Spanish Origins of Federal Indian Law, published originally in 1942 and since then reprinted many times.This article cites Cohen's paper in its political and historiographical context, paying particular attention to Cohen's role as one of the architects of the Indian Reorganisation Act of 1934, and considering also shifts in American historiography and legal writing relating to the Spanish legacy as exemplified by legal historians such as James Brown Scott and historians such as H E Bolton. This article also considers fully Cohen's analysis of the precise ways in which Spanish law penetrated the legal framework of Federal Indian Law in the United States and concludes that, as a historical discussion, Cohen's work is in need of substantial revision. In particular Cohen's arguments that Spanish law influenced federal Indian law via international law and by means of judicial consideration of old Spanish land claims seem difficult to sustain.

An analysis of stagnation in multilateral law-making – and why the law of the sea has transcended the stagnation trend

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Current Trend ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

Abstract The article explores the current stagnation in multilateral law-making based on an analysis of recent treaty attempts across various subfields of international law. It further examines why the law of the sea has continued to evolve despite this trend. The article demonstrates that states still regularly seek multilateral treaties to address new challenges. While there is some evidence of general treaty saturation, it is the current inability of traditional great powers to negotiate new binding norms which is the most constraining factor on multilateral law-making. This in turn is related to deeper geopolitical shifts by which traditional great powers, notably the United States and its allies, have seen their relative influence decline. Until the current great power competition ends or settles into a new mode of international co-operation, new multilateral treaties with actual regulatory effect will rarely emerge. The law of the sea has avoided the current trend of stagnation for primarily three reasons (i) a global commitment to the basic tenets of the law of the sea; (ii) a legal framework that affords rights and obligations somewhat evenly disbursed, allowing less powerful states to use their collective leverage to advance multilateral negotiations, despite intermittent great power opposition; and (iii) the avoidance of entrenched multilateral forums where decisions are reached by consensus only.

Federal Indian Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Bruce Duthu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Federal Indian Law ◽  
Dominant Society ◽  
Indian Tribes ◽  
Formal Relations ◽  
Indian Law ◽  
The U.S

United States law recognizes American Indian tribes as distinct political bodies with powers of self-government. Their status as sovereign entities predates the formation of the United States and they are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution as among the subjects (along with foreign nations and the several states) with whom Congress may engage in formal relations. And yet, despite this long-standing recognition, federal Indian law remains curiously ambivalent, even conflicted, about the legal and political status of Indian tribes within the U.S. constitutional structure. On the one hand, tribes are recognized as sovereign bodies with powers of self-government within their lands. On the other, long-standing precedents of the Supreme Court maintain that Congress possesses plenary power over Indian tribes, with authority to modify or even eliminate their powers of self-government. These two propositions are in tension with one another and are at the root of the challenges faced by political leaders and academics alike in trying to understand and accommodate the tribal rights to self-government. The body of laws that make up the field of federal Indian law include select provisions of the U.S. Constitution (notably the so-called Indian Commerce Clause), treaties between the United States and various Indian tribes, congressional statutes, executive orders, regulations, and a complex and rich body of court decisions dating back to the nation’s formative years. The noted legal scholar Felix Cohen brought much-needed coherence and order to this legal landscape in the 1940s when he led a team of scholars within the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the Interior to produce a handbook on federal Indian law. The revised edition of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law is still regarded as the seminal treatise in the field. Critically, however, this rich body of law only hints at the real story in federal Indian law. The laws themselves serve as historical and moral markers in the ongoing clash between indigenous and nonindigenous societies and cultures still seeking to establish systems of peaceful coexistence in shared territories. It is a story about the limits of legal pluralism and the willingness of a dominant society and nation to acknowledge and honor its promises to the first inhabitants and first sovereigns.

scholarly journals Closer to home: How national implementation affects State conduct in partnered operations

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Alessandro Mario Amoroso
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Committee ◽  
International Level ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Support Relationships ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract Domestic law, case law and policies play a decisive yet underestimated role in ensuring that partnered operations are carried out in compliance with international law. Research on the legal framework of partnered operations has so far focused on clarifying existing and emerging obligations at the international level. Less attention has been devoted to understanding whether and how domestic legal systems integrate international law into national decision-making which governs the planning, execution and assessment of partnered operations. This article tries to fill the gap by focusing on the practice of selected States (the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and Italy), chosen for their recent or current involvement in partnered operations. By using the International Committee of the Red Cross's “support relationships” framework and based on a comparative analysis of practice, the study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of national laws, case law and policies according to their ability to prevent or mitigate the risk of humanitarian consequences posed by partnered warfare.

Religion as Collective Right

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-195
Author(s):  
Michael D. McNally
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Native Peoples ◽  
Federal Indian Law ◽  
Indian Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Rhetorical Force

This chapter considers efforts to legislate Native American religious freedom in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA, 1978). Where courts and even common sense have seen AIRFA as a religious freedom statute—as an extension of the legal protections of the First Amendment into the distinctive terrain of Native American traditions—the chapter suggests a different view. If the legal force of “religious freedom” discourse has been only dimly effective for Native sacred claims in courts, this chapter is the one that most pointedly shows how Native peoples drew on the rhetorical power of the sacred and religious freedom to win significant legislative protections specific to Native peoples. It does so through interviews with Suzan Shown Harjo. These interviews show how the remarkable legislative accomplishment of AIRFA and, later, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), carry the rhetorical force of religious freedom into the legal shape of federal Indian law, with its recognition of treaty-based collective rights and the United States' nation-to-nation relationship with Native peoples.

Federal Indian Law

Anthropology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Killsback
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Indian ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
American Indians ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Indian Law ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Indian Tribes ◽  
Indian Law

Federal Indian law (FIL), also known as American Indian law, is the body of doctrine that regulates the political relationship between American Indian and Alaska Native governments and the federal government. FIL is best understood as the development of this “government-to-government” relationship, which intersects with other bodies of law like constitutional law, criminal law, and environmental law. FIL is comprised of legal doctrines, statutes, judicial decisions, treaties, and executive orders, all of which have direct influences on the rights and sovereignty of Indian tribes. In the United States there are 573 federally recognized tribes that are subject to the rights and privileges, as well as the consequences, of FIL. These federally recognized tribes are the third sovereign authority in the United States—the other two are states and the federal government—that retain inherent rights and that exercise and enjoy sovereignty and self-governance on their own lands. The historical development of FIL in the United States constitutes an important starting point in understanding the special relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government. The origins of FIL lay in three US Supreme Court cases known as the “Marshall trilogy,” after Chief Justice John Marshall, the presiding chief justice of Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). At that time, the primary questions centered on the sovereign rights of Indian tribes, that is, whether Indians have dominion over themselves and their lands. Throughout the development of FIL, until today, questions of Indian tribal sovereignty—or Indigenous nation sovereignty—remained contentious as Indians continued to fight for treaty rights, autonomy, and self-determination. FIL can be described as a series of wins and losses for American Indians in their fight for sovereign rights. In the end, however, the study of FIL is equally the study of how the United States was able to legally subjugate America’s indigenous peoples and acquire their lands. FIL is basically the study of America’s justification for Native America’s colonization and the genocide perpetrated against American Indians. The literature on FIL or American Indian law is vast, but the most valuable resources are authored by and for attorneys and for students of law. Although the disciplines of Native American and Indigenous studies encompass facets of American Indian and Indigenous peoples’ lives, scholarship in FIL has proven to be beneficial. The resources cited in this article represent some of the widely used texts that provide a solid foundation for studies in FIL.

Tribal Courts, Restorative Justice and Native Land Claims

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-386
Author(s):  
Zia Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Native People ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Native American Tribes ◽  
Judicial Procedures

The Native American tribes in the United States have maintained distinctive customs which they practice within their ‘eviscerated’ sovereignty. The tribes exercise their jurisdiction as ‘sovereign’ nations under devolution of their lands granted by the federal government, which still has a right of preemption and the power of alienation. The tribal courts exercise the restorative justice principles that are integral to their judicial procedures and where the emphasis is on healing. The disputes in tribal courts are settled by mediation through Peacekeeping Circles that restore the parties to the pre-trial status and there is input from elders in the community. The Native people not only have to differentiate and preserve their justice framework, but also claim title to land where it has been extinguished by treaty, eminent domain or Executive order of the us government. The argument in this paper is that the restorative justice principle is part of the customary law of the tribes in the us and in Canada, and their dormant land claims can be revisited if this judicial process is maintained in the context of sustaining their customs within the federal legal framework.

Towards A Comparative Rhetoric of Argument: Using the Concept of “Audience” as a Means of Educating Students about Comparative Argument

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Whalen-Bridge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Comparative Rhetoric ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Legal Writing ◽  
Legal Position

AbstractAre Asian law schools adequately preparing law students to handle problems raised by cross-border disputes? Preparation has generally been limited to courses in conflicts of law, international law and comparative law, but the successful presentation of a legal position in a foreign legal system arguably requires more than an understanding of legal rules. Studies in legal culture suggest that participants in different legal systems think about the law in radically different ways. Comparative examples from the criminal justice systems of the United States and Japan demonstrate that some knowledge of a comparative rhetoric of argument - which arguments are appropriate in different legal systems - is required. Legal Writing Programmes can play a role in teaching comparative argument by expanding the concept of “audience” to include foreign legal systems.

Coalition Procurement for the Reconstruction of Iraq in the Crosshairs of WTO Law: The Obligations of the United States under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-282
Author(s):  
Dirk Pulkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Government Procurement ◽  
Economic Reason ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Basic Infrastructure ◽  
The U.S

Investigating the legality? Ha ha ha! That cracks me up. There is no international law that would prohibit this action by the Defense Department, nor is there any international court that France may appeal to. I of course think that this is the correct decision. Those countries who did not help win the war – who did not pay the price in blood – have no claim to the postwar profits. – Mike, Why I'm Right, Internet ForumDuring the Reagan administration, I helped negotiate … the “GATT Government Procurement Code”, later incorporated into the World Trade Organization's legal framework. The U.S. was the primary force behind this legal agreement. It was not motivated by altruism, but out of a belief that all signatory governments … and their respective tax payers would benefit from basing practices on economic factors rather than national favoritism. - Gene Tuttle, in responseInfrastructure in Iraq lies in tatters. Unscrupulous exploitation by Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime, burdensome economic sanctions and massive destruction during the U.S.-led military operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ have turned Iraq into one of the world's most destitute countries. On the UN Human Poverty Index for 2003, Iraq ranks seventy-first out of ninety-six developing nations. The reconstruction of basic infrastructure is but one first step towards development and economic growth. Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, however, involves substantial economic interests. After all, the cake to be distributed for rebuilding Iraq is expected to exceed $100 billion. Some companies see on the horizon one of the most rewarding business opportunities “undertaken in over 50 years” At the same time, there is a growing suspicion that political or even personal biases of the United States' administration have a bigger role to play than economic reason when it comes to sharing the cake. In December 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, announced that some of America's trading partners, among them Canada, France, Germany and Russia, would be altogether excluded from competition for major reconstruction projects in Iraq. Public opinion in Europe was quick to brand the United States an international law-breaker. Can one State simply reserve to itself the final word on the Iraqi reconstruction money?

Religion as Peoplehood

2020 ◽  
pp. 259-294
Author(s):  
Michael D. McNally
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Incremental Development ◽  
Federal Indian Law ◽  
International Human ◽  
Indian Law ◽  
United Nations Declaration

This chapter extends the discussion of “Religion as Peoplehood” beyond the very real limits of federal Indian law. It explores the possibilities and drawbacks of increasing appeals to Indigenous rights under international human rights law. The possibilities of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are quite rich, as are its implementation apparatus for protecting Native religions under Indigenous rights. However, without having to define them as such, the approach is slow to grow domestic legal teeth in the United States. Its incremental development as authoritative law can, as this chapter shows, be strengthened by making clearer associations with U.S. religious freedom law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document