No CrossRef data available.
Historical Indigenous Peoples' Land Claims: A Comparative and International Approach to the Common Law Doctrine on Indigenous Title
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
Within common law systems a body of jurisprudence has developed according to which indigenous peoples' land rights have been recognized based upon historical patterns of use and occupancy and corresponding traditional land tenure. Looking at the emerging common law doctrine on aboriginal or native title, this article examines how legal institutions are building a theory on historical land claims through the recognition of indigenous laws deriving from prior occupation. The article analyses how the common law doctrine builds a bridge between past events and contemporary land claims. The aim of this article is to examine to what extent the common law doctrine proposes a potential model for the development of a legal theory on the issue of indigenous peoples' historical land claims. In doing so the article analyses how the common law doctrine compares with international law when dealing with historical arguments by focusing on issues of intertemporal law and extinguishment.
- International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 583 - 611
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007
1 Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No 169), reprinted in ILM 1382 (1989).Google Scholar Only two Commonwealth countries—Fiji and Dominica—have ratified the Convention.
2 See General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/163 (1994)Google Scholar and Resolution A/RES/59/174 (2005).Google Scholar
3 Economic and Social Council Resolution 2000/22.
5 See Thornberry, P, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (MUP, Manchester, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anaya, J, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004).Google Scholar
6 See Gilbert, J, Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors (Transnational Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff, Ardsley, 2006)Google Scholar
7 See ‘Indigenous Peoples and their relationship to Land: Final working paper prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Erica-Irene A. Daes’ UN Doc E/CN.4/SUB.2/2001/21.
8 See Barkan, E, The Guilt of Nations, Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2000).Google Scholar
9 See Ulrich, G and Boserup, L Krabbe (eds), Reparations: Redressing Past Wrongs, Human Rights in Development Yearbook 2001 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2003).Google Scholar
10 The most recent illustration includes the resolution proposed by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly deferring ‘consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. See document A/C.3/61/L.57/Rev.1 (28 11 2006).Google Scholar
11 Yunupingu, G (ed), Our Land is our Life, Land Rights, Past Present and Future (University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1997).Google Scholar See also Patton, P, ‘The Translation of Indigenous Land into Property: The Mere Analogy of English Jurisprudence’ (2000) 6 Parallax 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 This is also true for New Zealand. However, the situation remains particular as the recognition of native title is flowing from the existence of the Treaty of Waitangi. See Attorney-General v Ngati Apa  3 NZLR 643, 2003 NZLR.Google Scholar See also US Supreme Court, Oneida Indian Nation v Country of Oneida (1974) 414 US 661.Google Scholar In general, see McNeil, K, Common Law Aboriginal Title (OUP, Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar
13 Reilly, A and Genovese, A, ‘Claiming the Past: Historical Understanding in Australian Native Title Jurisprudence (2004) 3 Indigenous Law Journal 19.Google Scholar
14 Looking at Canada, Australia and New Zealand McHugh refers to the emergence of a ‘jurisprudence of reconciliation’: McHugh, PG, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 539–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also McNeil, K, ‘Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin’ (2003) 2 Indigenous Law Journal 1.Google Scholar
15 See Miller, J and Kumar, R (eds), Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries (OUP, Oxford, 2007).Google Scholar
16 For references, see McNeil (n 12).
17 Haveman, P (ed), Indigenous Peoples Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (OUP, Oxford, 1999).Google Scholar
18 See Adong bin Kuwau v Kerajaan Negeri Johor  1 MLJ 418Google Scholar,  2 MLJ 158.Google Scholar
20 On this issue see Bulan, R, ‘Native Title as a Proprietary Right under the Constitution in Peninsula Malaysia: A Step in the Right Direction?’ (2001) 9 Asia Pacific Law Review 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Republic of Kenya—In the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi Civil Case No 238 of 1999 (OS). See also High Court at Nakuru, Moses Lesiamon Ole Mpoe v Commissioner Of Lands .Google Scholar
22 Maya indigenous community of the Toledo District v Belize, Case 12.053, Report No 40/04, Inter-Am CHR, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.122 Doc 5 rev 1 at 727 (2004) para 107Google Scholar; and see the conclusion of the Commission on this point, para 131.
24 High Court of Botswana, Roy Sesana and Ke/wa Setlohobogwa v The Attorney General, Misca No 52 of 2002 (13 12 2006).Google Scholar
25 See the case filed in 1998 by six leaders from the Akawaio and Arecuna communities, for references: Anselmo, L and MacKay, F, Indigenous Peoples, Land Rights and Mining in the Upper Mazaruni (Global Law Association, Tilburg, 1999).Google Scholar
26 For references, see The Bakweri Land Claims Committee (BLCC) v The Republic of Cameroon (Case No 260/2002), African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
27 Zimmermann, R and Visser, D, Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 See Jaichand, V, Restitution of Land Rights: A Workbook (Lex Patria, Johannesburg, 1997).Google Scholar
29 Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994—Act No 22 [as amended by Act No 84, 1995 and Act No 78, 1996].Google Scholar
30 For an overview of the proceedings, see Hoq, L Amena, ‘Land Restitution and the Doctrine of Aboriginal Title: Ritchersveld Community v. Alexkor Ltd and Another’ (2002) 18 SAJHR 421.Google Scholar
31 For an illustration, see Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and another LCC151/98 (22 03 2001), paras 44–8, 52.Google Scholar
32 The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 03 2003).Google Scholar
34 Barry, M, ‘Now another Thing must Happen: Richtersveld and the Dilemmas of Land Reform in Post-Apartheid South Africa’ (2004) 20 SAJHR 355, 368.Google Scholar
36 This point is also supported by decision regarding indigenous peoples' land rights in Québec, see R v Côté  3 SCR 139.Google Scholar
37 For a discussion on the implications/limits of such integration, see Lehmann, K, ‘Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Rights and the Right to Culture’ (2004) 20 SAJHR 86.Google Scholar
38 On the notion of exclusivity of such occupation, see High Court of Australia, Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1.Google Scholar
39 St Catherine's Milling and Lumber v The Queen (1889) 14 App Cas 46Google Scholar; Re Southern Rhodesia  AC 211.Google Scholar
40 Johnson and Braham's Lessee v M'Intosh 21 US (8 Wheat) 1823Google Scholar; Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 US 1 (1830)Google Scholar; Worcester v Georgia, 31 US (1832).Google Scholar
41 eg the US Supreme Court in the 1833 case of United States v Percheman affirmed that when there is a change of sovereignty: ‘the people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other, and their right to property, remain undisturbed’, United States v Percheman (1833) 7 Pet 6132 US, 87Google Scholar; see also: Certain Questions Relating to Settlers of German Origin in the Territory Ceded by Germany to Poland PCIJ Ser B No 6 (10 09 1923).Google Scholar
42 See, eg, Vajesingji Joravarsingji v Secretary of State for India (1924) LR 51 Ind App 357.Google Scholar
43 See High Court of Australia, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 107 ALR 1, paras 89 and 182Google Scholar; Supreme Court of Canada, R v Van der Peet 2 SCR (1996) 507, paras 18–19.Google Scholar
45 Borrows, J and Rotman, L, ‘The Sui Generis Nature of Aboriginal Rights: Does it make a Difference?’ (1997) 36 Alta L Rev 9Google Scholar
46 The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 03 2003).Google Scholar
48 Nor Anak Nyawai v Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd  2 Current Law Journal (Malaysia) 769.Google Scholar
49 See confirmation of such approach by the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and 3 Ors v Sagong Bin Tasi and 6 Ors 2005 [CA].Google Scholar
50 N Pearson, ‘The Concept of Native Title at Common Law’ in Yunupingu (n 11).
51 For an illustration, see Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 3 SCR 1010.Google Scholar
56 Such reference would seem comparable to the principle of non retroactivity which is widely accepted at the national level.
59 Mabo v Queensland (No 2)  HCA 23Google Scholar; (1992) 175 CLR 1 FC 92/014 (3 June 1992), para 41.Google Scholar
60 MacKay, F, Addressing Past Wrongs, Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to Restitution of Land and Resources (10 2002), at <www.forestpeoples.org/documents/law_hr/ips_restitution_protected_areas_oct02a_eng.pdf>..>Google Scholar
61 Sandra Lovelace v Canada, Communication No 24/1977 (14 08 1979), UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984) 10, paras 10, 11, 12, and 13.Google Scholar
62 Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Communication No 167/1984 (26 03 1990), UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/45/40) (1990) 1, para 33.Google Scholar
63 See Simunek, Hastings, Tuzilova and Prochazka v The Czech Republic, Communication No 516/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995).Google Scholar
64 Representations under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution may be made by employers' and workers' organizations who claim that a State has failed to observe a ratified Convention. For details, see <http://www.ilo.org>.
65 Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Associated Workers, Doc GB.273/15/6; GB.276/16/3.
66 Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Denmark of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Sulinermik Inuussutissarsiuteqartut Kattuffiat (SIK), Doc GB.277/18/3; GB.280/18/5, submitted 1999.
68 Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Confederación Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres (CEOSL), Doc GB.277/18/4, GB.282/14/2, submitted 2000.
69 Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/02, Doc 5 rev 1 (2002) 860, see para 167—IACHR.Google Scholar
70 See Ormanecha, P, ‘Moiwana Village: The Inter-American Court and the “Continuing Violation” Doctrine’ (2006) 19 Harvard Human Rights Journal, 283.Google Scholar
71 Reilly, A, ‘The Australian Experience of Aboriginal Title: Lessons for South Africa’ (2000) 16 SAJHR 512, 515.Google Scholar
76 General Comment No 23: The rights of minorities (Art 27): UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, General Comment No 23. (General Comments) para 7.
77 I Länsman v Finland (Communication No 511/1992), UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.3.
78 Apirana Mahuika v New Zealand, Communication No 547/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000) para 9.4.Google Scholar
83 McNeil, K, ‘The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title’ (Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, 2000).Google Scholar
85 Connolly, A, ‘Judicial Conceptions of tradition in Canadian Aboriginal Rights Law’ (2006) 7 Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94 Reilly and Genovese (n 13).
96 Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14 (14 04 2005) para 17.Google Scholar
98 As the authors highlights in this context metahistory ‘means the propounding of universal explanations of historical processes’, ibid 36.
100 See Dorsett, S, ‘Clear and Plain Intention Extinguishment of Native Title in Australia and Canada post-Wik’ (1997) 6 Griffith Law Review 96.Google Scholar
101 See, eg, High Court of Australia, Western Australia v Ward; Attorney General (NT) v Ward; Ningamara v Northern Territory; Ward v Crosswalk Pty Ltd  HCA 28.Google Scholar
103 McNeil, K, ‘The Vulnerability of Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and Canada’ (2004) 42 Osgoode Hall L J 271–302.Google Scholar
107 EI Daes, Special Rapporteur, ‘Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous People and their relationship to land’ Working Paper, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/17, para 29.
109 Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples by the Grand Council of the Cree (Eeyou Astchee) Montreal, Québec, 18 11 1993, 7.Google Scholar
111 CERD, Decision 1 (66), para 6 UN Doc CERD/C/66/NZL/Dec 1.
112 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5 (2005), para 8.Google Scholar
113 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary and Carrie Dann v United States Report No 113/01, Case No 11.140 (15 10 2001).Google Scholar
116 Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 53.
119 Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/02, Inter-Am CHR, Doc 5 rev 1 at 860 (2002) 27, para 100.Google Scholar
122 Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 140.
123 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23, Art 27 (55th session, 1994), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) 38, para 7.Google Scholar
124 Länsman v Finland, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.5.Google Scholar
125 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.105, para 8 (1999).Google Scholar
126 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, para 8 (2006).Google Scholar
127 eg see comments by the Government of Australia on the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14/Add.1 (2006).Google Scholar
128 General Recommendation XXIII, Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/52/18, annex V, para 4(d) (1997).Google Scholar
130 Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14, para 16
132 See Expanded working paper submitted by Mrs Antoanella-Iulia Motoc and the Tebtebba Foundation offering guidelines to govern the practice of Implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in relation to development affecting their lands and natural resources, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2005/WP.1.
133 Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, M, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/24/Add 1 (26 02 2002).Google Scholar
134 Extinguishment is ‘the cessation or cancellation of some right or interest’. Black's Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson West, St Paul, 2004) 623.Google Scholar
136 Wiessner, S, ‘Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Analysis’ (1999) 12 Har Hum Rts J 57.Google Scholar
137 See Gilbert, J, ‘Indigenous Rights in the Making: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2007) 14 IJMGR (forthcoming).Google Scholar