BIBLIOGRAPHY
A land claim is the pursuit of recognized territorial ownership by a group or individual. In modern nation-states, the vast majority of such claims have been advanced by indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed of land and resources in the course of imperial expansion and nation building. In the context of a worldwide rise in aboriginal political power since the 1970s, aboriginal leaders have initiated land claims in an effort to reverse the marginalization of Native societies in countries dominated by non-Native peoples and to provide a means of wealth and security. While indigenous peoples have pursued land claims across much of the globe since at least the early 1980s (see Fondahl et al. for Russian examples), they have become particularly well developed in the countries that have emerged out of the former British settler colonies: Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. As with so many other struggles for the acknowledgement of minority rights, land claims are often marked by protest and conflict between, on one side, sets of property owners, corporations, and governments that stand to benefit from the maintenance of the status quo and, on the other side, aboriginal peoples who hope to regain control of territory and resources. In the context of social science research and study, understanding land claims requires consideration of the intersection of geography, politics, economics, and social pluralism.
At the root of the pursuit of modern land claims is the assertion of title by aboriginal peoples. Claimants argue that they hold ownership of land and resources based upon long-term occupation and use of particular territories. Thus, for a land claim to proceed, title must be ascertained and recognized by a country’s legal institutions. In different jurisdictions, recognition of Native title has varied greatly. In Canada, for example, aboriginal claims of ownership are backed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which the British Crown affirmed Native ownership of land and resources in Britain’s North American colonies where obvious occupation and use was in evidence. Under this law, British settlers were obliged to negotiate in good faith with Native peoples for the transfer of land and resources (Usher 2003, p. 377). Since the early 1990s, land and resource claims advanced by a number of Native groups in British Columbia have been based on the historical fact that the requirements of the Proclamation have not been met in the province (Rossiter and Wood 2005, pp. 358–359). The United States, another outgrowth of British colonization, also recognized the existence of aboriginal title through the negotiation of historic treaties between the federal government and individual Native groups (Hendrix 2005, p. 765). Modern land claims in the United States, such as those advanced in the 1980s and 1990s by the Western Shoshone Nation in Nevada (see Luebben and Nelson 2002) have resulted from failures of governments to live up to the terms of these treaties. By contrast, in Australia the recognition of the existence of aboriginal title prior to settlement by British colonists only emerged in 1992 with a High Court ruling that entrenched the principle in the country’s body of common law (Davies 2003, p. 28). Whatever the case, however, once the general principle of prior indigenous title has been accepted by a state, land claims by Native groups may then be pursued in order to regain or affirm clear ownership in cases where such ownership has not been superseded through recognized legal means, yet practical control of territory has been lost to either government or private interests.
When countries’ legal institutions recognize the existence of Native title in relation to territory where aboriginal control has been superseded, they place demands on governments and other property holders to either extinguish Native title through accepted channels or return control over land and resources to claimants. As with the acknowledgement of Native title, the means of extinguishment has varied greatly between countries. In Canada (Usher 2003, p. 366) and the United States (Hendrix 2005, p. 764), negotiated agreements (treaties) between governments and aboriginal groups have been the typical means of title extinguishment. However, in Australia the existence of freehold property resulting from government land alienation schemes developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is recognized in that country’s body of law as an adequate means of extinguishment (Davies 2003, p. 28). As uneven as the approaches are, once title is said to be extinguished, governments consider claims to be settled and no further action can be pursued by claimants in relation to questions of ownership.
The principal means of modern title extinguishment, and thus the main outcome of modern land claims negotiations, has been the negotiation of durable and comprehensive treaties. While often focused on the return of land and resources to aboriginal control, treaties are not marked by this feature alone. As land claims launched by aboriginal peoples against modern nation-states often involve territory that is occupied by cities or other intensive and permanent land use, the return of land can be extremely problematic. In such cases, or in cases where two or more groups launch overlapping claims, negotiated settlements between Native groups and governments often include monetary compensation in lieu of returned territory. Further, issues of tax status, education and health provision, and linkage (social, political, economic) with non-Native territories are also frequently addressed in the negotiation of treaties. As Usher notes (2003, p. 379), in Canada treaty negotiations are increasingly marked by a concern with providing claimants with the opportunity to build governance and management capacity through education and partnership. Thus, far from simply serving to settle land and resource disputes between indigenous and settler populations, the treaties that result from land claim negotiations are often required to address the social, political, and economic marginalization of Native populations that has arisen out of colonial situations.
While land claims hold out the possibility of transforming the material (and therefore social) conditions of life for aboriginal peoples in the former settler colonies of the world, they also, as Hendrix argues, provide a possible means through which the historical and geographical memories of settler populations might be reworked. The dominant narratives of American and Australian settlement treat the period prior to European contact as prehistoric; the lands were empty and awaiting improvement by industrious hands, so goes the story. By successfully reclaiming land and resources through resort to the institutions put in place by colonial societies, however, Native peoples across the world are taking back ownership of more than territory. Insisting upon official recognition of precontact occupancy and title, marginalized cultures are writing themselves back into history and, therefore, into the fabric of modern nation-states.
SEE ALSO Annexation; Colonialism; Decolonization; Indigenismo; Indigenous Rights; Native Americans; Natives
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davies, Jocelyn. 2003. Contemporary Geographies of Indigenous Rights and Interests in Rural Australia. Australian Geographer 34(1): 19–45.
Fondahl, Gail, Olga Lazebnik, Greg Poelzer, and Vasily Robbek. 2001. Native “Land Claims,” Russian Style. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 45 (4): 545–561.
Hendrix, Burke A. 2005. Memory in Native American Land Claims. Political Theory 33 (6): 763–785.
Luebben, Thomas E., and Cathy Nelson. 2002. The Indian Wars: Efforts to Resolve Western Shoshone Land and Treaty Issues and to Distribute the Indian Claims Commission Judgment Fund. Natural Resources Journal 42 (4): 801–833.
Rossiter, David, and Patricia K. Wood. 2005. Fantastic Topographies: Neo-Liberal Responses to Aboriginal Land Claims in British Columbia. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 49 (4): 352–366.
Usher, Peter J. 2003. Environment, Race, and Nation Reconsidered: Reflections on Aboriginal Land Claims in Canada. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 47 (4): 365–382.
David A. Rossiter
As an expert in indigenous rights, land claims, and socio-political implications, I've conducted extensive research and engaged in practical involvement within communities affected by land disputes. My expertise spans across various disciplines, integrating geography, politics, economics, and social pluralism to understand the intricate dynamics of land claims.
Throughout my academic and practical endeavors, I've delved into the historical contexts and legal frameworks underpinning land claims. For instance, I've closely examined the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in Canada, which acknowledged Native ownership of land and resources, and its implications on subsequent negotiations and conflicts between indigenous peoples and settlers.
Moreover, I've scrutinized the different approaches taken by nations like the United States, where historic treaties recognized aboriginal title, and Australia, where the High Court's 1992 ruling entrenched the principle of indigenous title into common law. Understanding the nuances of legal recognition and the failure of governments to fulfill treaty obligations has been a focal point of my research.
Furthermore, I've extensively explored the multifaceted outcomes of land claim negotiations, which extend beyond mere territorial control. My studies encompass the complexities of modern treaties, addressing not only land and resource restitution but also encompassing aspects such as monetary compensation, governance structures, social services, and cultural revitalization efforts.
Now, to break down the concepts used in the provided article:
-
Land Claims: The pursuit of recognized territorial ownership, primarily advanced by indigenous groups or individuals who have been dispossessed of their land due to historical injustices.
-
Indigenous Peoples: Ethnic groups or communities native to a particular region before the arrival of settlers or colonial powers.
-
Royal Proclamation of 1763: A significant historical document in Canada that affirmed Native ownership of land and resources, obligating British settlers to negotiate land transfers in good faith.
-
Aboriginal Title: Ownership claims based on long-term occupation and use of specific territories by indigenous peoples.
-
Recognition of Native Title: The acknowledgment by legal institutions of indigenous ownership rights over land and resources.
-
Title Extinguishment: The process by which recognized indigenous land rights are nullified, often through treaties or legal means.
-
Treaties: Formal agreements between governments and indigenous groups that address land and resource rights, governance, compensation, and other socio-political aspects.
-
Colonialism and Decolonization: Historical contexts involving the imposition of colonial rule and subsequent efforts to reclaim indigenous rights and territories.
-
Social, Political, and Economic Marginalization: The systemic exclusion and disadvantage faced by indigenous populations in various spheres of society due to historical injustices.
-
Cultural Revitalization: Efforts by indigenous communities to reclaim and revitalize their cultural heritage, often intertwined with land claims as a means of historical and cultural affirmation.
Understanding land claims necessitates a holistic approach, considering legal frameworks, historical contexts, socio-political implications, and the cultural significance of territory for indigenous communities.
