INDIGENOUS
LAW SUMMARIES: SELECTED RECENT LAW REVIEW ARTICLES
by
Anosh Yaqoob, JD 2008
The Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law is committed to exploring
and critically examining the many significant and pressing issues facing
Native Hawaiians and other indigenous peoples. This includes exploring
new theories and practical arguments being developed by legal and indigenous
scholars in law reviews and journals. This
issue of Ka He‘e summarizes law review articles analyzing indigenous
peoples' use of international law, community- and native-oriented property
rights, and lawyering in indigenous communities.
1.
S. James Anaya, Indian Givers: What Indigenous Peoples Have Contributed
To International Human Rights Law, 22 WASH. U. J.L. & POL’Y
107 (2006).
Professor
S. James Anaya’s article is drawn from a speech given at the Public
Interest Law Speakers Series held at Washington University in St. Louis
School of Law in 2006. Professor Anaya’s article presents two main points:
first, indigenous peoples worldwide have found international law helpful
in pursuing their claims for redress; and second, indigenous peoples’
very participation in the international legal context has itself done
much to contribute to international human rights law.
Indigenous
Use of International Law
Professor
Anaya identifies two distinct strains concerning the use of international
law by indigenous peoples. In the first yet ultimately less successful
line of reasoning, native peoples argue for the application of international
law to their claims because as political communities, they attempt to
posit for themselves the attributes of nation-statehood in order to
be considered among nation-states—which are the primary international
law actors. Professor Anaya concludes that this approach to utilizing
international law is futile because the historic development of international
law with nation-states as primary actors was wrought from a racism which
was meant to exclude indigenous peoples from participation in the international
legal order. Essentially, an international legal regime centered around
nation-states was crafted to exclude indigenous peoples.
The
more successful legal vehicle for indigenous causes in the international
arena, argues Professor Anaya, lies in the second manner in which indigenous
peoples have utilized international law: bringing their claims within
the scope of international human rights, which the international order
has embraced since the Second World War. Professor Anaya advocates that
engaging the human rights framework of current international law has
been, and will continue to be, a successful avenue for addressing indigenous
peoples’ concerns.
Indigenous
Improvements to International Law
Professor
Anaya briefly analyzes four distinct ways in which indigenous peoples’
participation in the international legal order has changed that body
of law for the better. First, indigenous peoples’ involvement in international
human rights has been path-breaking in giving voice to human collectives
beyond just states per se. Indigenous rights as collective
conceptually rejects the traditional individual/state dichotomy, and
has improved international human rights law. Second, indigenous peoples’
involvement in the international legal arena has helped to break down
state sovereignty which has been used as an almost impenetrable shield
to charges against state abuses of indigenous concerns and rights. Third,
indigenous involvement in international law has strengthened the notion
of self-determination, by providing an alternative to the traditional
nation-state as a legitimate form of human collective. Finally, Professor
Anaya analyzes how indigenous participation in international law has
helped to strengthen the importance of non-state actors in the international
legal regime at large.
2.
Alfred L. Brophy, Aloha Jurisprudence: Equity Rules in Property,
85 OR. L. REV. 771 (2006).
Professor
Alfred L. Brophy’s article describes the manner in which property law
in Hawai‘i has incorporated the Native Hawaiian concept of “Aloha” or
the “Aloha spirit.” The article briefly explains traditional American
property law with its major tension between individual private property
rights and community property rights, then describes Hawai‘i’s history,
post-Western contact. Brophy then discusses Hawai‘i’s contemporary statutory,
constitutional, and case law concerning property, and finally concludes
that, like critical race theory, feminist legal theory, and law and
literature, Aloha Jurisprudence has a place in law, in general, that
can contribute to shaping a better world.
In
an attempt to begin to sketch the contours of an Aloha Jurisprudence,
Brophy first highlights alternative views of property rights that were
present at the time of the American Revolution, suggesting that Aloha
Jurisprudence is not entirely outside the contemplation of traditional
American property law. Hearkening back to a 1765 dissertation by John
Adams, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and the Supreme Court’s
1837 decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, Brophy
argues that community-oriented rights to property have long held a voice
in the American legal tradition.
Brophy’s
article then turns to the historical development of property law in
Hawai‘i beginning with the Māhele of 1848. Brophy describes a series
of cases, beginning with Oni v. Meek (1858) through Public
Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission (1995),
and culminating with Diamond v. State (2006), where Hawai‘i
courts have integrated traditional Native Hawaiian property concepts
with traditional, Western-style notions of property rights. Brophy also
describes the Hawai‘i State Legislature’s past actions promoting community
property rights, further evidencing the existence of Aloha Jurisprudence.
Brophy
concludes that while Aloha Jurisprudence presently remains undefined,
in time, the pursuit of community-oriented views of property law in
Hawai‘i will lead to judicially-defined standards, more meaningful content,
and legal scholarship. Ultimately, a more humanitarian approach to property
law is the hallmark of Aloha Jurisprudence, and a community-oriented
view of property rights may very well have influence that extends beyond
the Hawaiian Islands.
3.
Christine Zuni Cruz, Toward A Pedagogy and Ethic of Law/Lawyering
For Indigenous Peoples, 82 N.D. L. REV. 863 (2006).
Professor
Christine Zuni Cruz’s article Toward a Pedagogy and Ethic of Law/Lawyering
for Indigenous Peoples blends two works: a shorter piece drawn
from a speech given at the Indigenous Law Conference on Indigenous Justice
Systems, and a longer traditional law review article addressing the
special concerns facing lawyers serving indigenous communities.
Toward
a Pedagogy and Ethic of Law
In
her remarks to the Second Annual Indigenous Law Conference on Indigenous
Justice Systems at the Michigan State University College of Law, Professor
Zuni Cruz reflects on having become the first tenured Pueblo law professor
at the University of New Mexico, as well as on the concept of “firstness”
generally.
Her
main point concerning “firstness” is that the pause and reflection about
any individual’s status as “the first” to do anything says more about
the racism, injustice, and inequality about the system under which the
individual is the first, rather than giving any meaningful comment about
that individual person. Professor Zuni Cruz discusses Harry Belafonte’s
interview with Larry King where Belafonte expressed deep regret at both
then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice concerning their lack of strong, firm objection to America’s initiation
of the Iraq war.
Professor
Zuni Cruz then recounts many potentially disheartening statistics from
the 2000 census indicating the dearth of Indian professionals—especially
lawyers and law professors. She details how she first came to understand
“brain drain” and its negative impact of depriving tribal communities
of their most educated, well-qualified individuals. She also cautions,
however, that simply attaining more numerical representation in the
legal profession is not going to help Indian communities: she makes
clear that “western legal training does not provide the universal solution
to every issue we encounter in Indian country…There is something
about indigenous knowledge that causes western knowledge to pale beside
it.”
Finally,
Zuni Cruz provides some uplifting words to law students. She cites an
American Bar Association study finding that law school is a hostile
and isolating environment that is damaging to self-esteem. She exhorts
law students to “keep their feet on the ground and their head in the
sky.” She reminds law students that in a short time they will be practicing
in the profession, serving their tribal communities, and that the rigors
of legal education may well help them in serving their communities.
She closes her remarks with the keen observation that lawyers from tribal
communities seeking to serve those communities have high expectations
to live up to.
Indigenous
Peoples and the Pedagogy and Ethics of Law/Lawyering
In
the second portion of her article, Professor Christine Zuni Cruz addresses
the inadequacy of the American legal educational system in training
indigenous people to be leaders for their tribal communities. She explains
that many indigenous communities often differentiate between Peace Leaders
or White Leaders (leaders who lead in times of peace and address internal
matters) and War Leaders or Red Leaders (those who lead against external
threats during times of war). She then discusses how traditional American
legal education focuses on molding law students into becoming War Leaders
ready to protect their tribes against external legal threats and litigation,
while neglecting to train them how to be Peace Leaders so that they
may address the internal affairs of their tribes. Peace Leaders must
study the internal law of their communities and their own legal histories
because a different kind of decision-making process is deployed; Peace
Leaders are not at war with their own communities.
Zuni
Cruz then develops an analysis recommending the different types of knowledge
attorneys should have when serving tribal communities within tribal
justice systems. For her, there should be “interdisciplinarity” in teaching
indigenous legal traditions. Equally important are sensitivity of the
processes of arriving at justice within tribal communities because of
their smaller, closer knit compositions; consensus building among those
in tribal communities; the use of narrative and voice; the importance
of language; and understandings about the interconnectedness of indigenous
knowledge, land, and peoples.