Treaty rights
[2] In the British constitutional tradition operating in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, once the Crown or the government recognizes that there is another body corporate with legal personality capable of making binding agreements on behalf of its members, negotiations can begin for mutual exchange and aid, resulting in a treaty.
[4][citation needed] The early treaties between European colonial powers and the various indigenous peoples of the Americas were generally similar in manner to military alliances between peers.
[citation needed] That principle, which was adopted by both Canada and the United States upon independence, and became the legal impetus for all subsequent treaties during the period of westward expansion.
In Australia and British Columbia, by contrast, a different legal principal of terra nullius was invoked by white settlers to justify occupying land without consulting indigenous peoples living there.
Therefore, indigenous treaties of the North American type do not exist in Burma, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
[12][13][14] Between the years 1778 and 1868, there were 373 treaties between the United States government and various Native American groups, including peace settlements and land exchanges.
In more recent years, the United States Senate has attempted to clarify the rights granted to Native Americans living on reservations.
Verbal commitments made to the Indigenous leaders not included in the written treaties became a common source of discontent and remains an ongoing issue of dispute and discussion.
[22] The long-lasting legal and socioeconomic impacts of the Numbered Treaties on First Nation peoples, such as the creation of reserves, schools and other instruments of assimilation, have affected Indigenous cultures, customs and traditional ways of life.
Contemporary treaties began in 1973 after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision which recognized Aboriginal rights for the first time.
There are several significant cases that recognized Indigenous rights in the Canadian court, such as R v. Sparrow, R. v. Van der Peet, and R. v. Powley.
In Canadian law, the government has a court-mandated "duty to consult" indigenous peoples regarding the management process of these lands and rivers.
[27] These treaties gave the Ojibwe the rights to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation, which was not subject to state regulation.
Spearheaded by groups like Stop Treaty Abuse (STA),[27] often violent and racially discriminatory protests against spearfishing covered boat landings across northern Wisconsin.
[28][citation needed] This led to the case Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin.
[27] This case culminated with Judge Barbara Crabb upholding the Voigt decision and many members, donors, and politicians distancing themselves from the STA, which many believed was racist.
[27] The right to hunt North Pacific gray whales has been a contentious issue for the Makah people in Washington state.
[29][30][31] The Makah people ceded much of their traditional lands in the Treaty of Neah Bay in 1855 but retained the right to whale.
[31] Because of a number of new studies garnishing evidence for and against this practice, the issue has been tied up in court since 1999, with the tribe being unable to exercise the right given to them in the Treaty of Neah Bay.
[32] In 1893, John L. Stevens, US minister assigned to the Kingdom of Hawaii, led a group of non-indigenous people to overthrow Queen Lili‘uokalani, which was backed by the United States naval forces.
Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists feel that because of the treaties mentioned above, Hawaii should today be its own Nation instead of part of the United States.
