Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evolving Duty to Consult and Obtain Free Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples for Extractive Projects in the United States and Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in the Extractive Industries

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights ((CHREN,volume 3))

Abstract

The duty to consult with Indigenous peoples in the context of extractive or other development activities impacting on their rights and well-being is clearly established in Canadian and US law and policy, albeit differently in each jurisdiction. In both jurisdictions, however, ambiguity remains regarding the nature of this duty to consult, including the degree to which Indigenous peoples’ interests must be accommodated and the circumstances under which their consent may be required in the context of extractive industry projects. In order to fully appreciate the meaning and potential of this recent “support” for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is therefore necessary to examine the legal frameworks governing Indigenous peoples’ consultation and consent rights in these jurisdictions.

This chapter will focus on the primary areas where guidance on the duty to consult emerges in the two jurisdictions. It first addresses the US legislative, regulatory and jurisprudential context and then examines Canadian statutory requirements, the Federal Government’s evolving position and the extensive body of Canadian jurisprudence on the topic. It offers a brief critique of the current situation with regard to the duty to consult in each jurisdiction and concludes by addressing their incongruities from an international human rights law (IHRL) perspective and the steps that should be taken to align these national historically based legal regimes and doctrines with contemporary IHRL standards pertaining to FPIC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN General Assembly, 61st Session, UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, 13 September 2007.

  2. 2.

    UN General Assembly, 61st Session, UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, 13 September 2007, pp. 11–12, 14; See also Hagen R, Explanation of vote on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.S. Advisor, on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to the UN General Assembly, USUN Press Release #204(07), 13 September 2007.

  3. 3.

    According to a joint 2006 statement of the US, New Zealand and Australia “there can be no absolute right of free, prior informed consent that is applicable uniquely to Indigenous peoples and that would apply regardless of circumstance”, Statement of Vaughn P, On free, prior informed consent, 22 May 2006, http://unny.mission.gov.au/unny/soc_220506.html (last accessed 1 October 2018). The US also stated that “The text also could be misread to confer upon a sub-national group a power of veto over the laws of a democratic legislature by requiring indigenous peoples, free, prior and informed consent before passage of any law that “may” affect them (e.g., Article 19). We strongly support the full participation of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes, but cannot accept the notion of a sub-national group having a “veto” power over the legislative process”, Hagen R, Explanation of vote on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.S. Advisor, on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to the UN General Assembly, USUN Press Release #204(07), 13 September 2007.

    Canada explained its 2007 vote against the Declaration as, in part, deriving from significant concerns regarding “free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto”, UN General Assembly, 61st Session, UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, 13 September 2007, p. 12. For an overview of the Canadian government’s position at the time see Joffe (2010). See also UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 19 and 32(2).

  4. 4.

    Remarks by the President at the White House Tribal Nations Conference, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, December 16, 2010 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/16/remarks-president-white-house-tribal-nations-conference (last accessed 1 October 2018).

    Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples, https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/srgia/154553.htm (last accessed 1 October 2018); Canada’s Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 12 November 2010, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1309374239861 (last accessed 26 January 2018).

  5. 5.

    Canada’s Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 12 November 2010, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1309374239861 (last accessed 26 January 2018); Canada subsequently expressed its unqualified support for the UNDRIP in 2016, see UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 16th Session, Speech for the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 25 April 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-northern-affairs/news/2017/05/speaking_notes_forthehonourablecarolynbennettministerofindigenou.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  6. 6.

    Federal government representatives were not permitted to discuss the issue and it was therefore unclear if Canada understood “veto” to be synonymous with “consent” and “FPIC” as affirmed under IHRL, or if it regarded “veto” as an absolute right to say “no”, irrespective of the facts and law in any given case.

  7. 7.

    Bennett C, Speech at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 16th Session: Opening Ceremony, 26 April 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-northern-affairs/news/2017/04/united_nations_permanentforumonindigenousissues16thsessionopenin.html (last accessed 1 October 2018). However, in 2016 Prime Minister Trudeau was reported as stating that indigenous peoples do not have a veto over energy projects, see Canadian Press, Trudeau says First Nations “don’t have a veto” over energy projects, National Post, 20 December 2016, http://business.financialpost.com/news/trudeau-saysfirst-nations-dont-have-a-veto-over-energy-projects/wcm/a3b7313b-1c02-4769-84d0-96bceeba9d6a (last accessed 26 January 2018).

  8. 8.

    Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples, https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/srgia/154553.htm (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  9. 9.

    Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples, https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/srgia/154553.htm (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  10. 10.

    McNeil (2009), p. 282; Richardson (2009), p. 54; Imai (2009), p. 302.

  11. 11.

    Williams (1999) and Prucha (1994).

  12. 12.

    The Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, Sections 25 and 35. In negotiating s. 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Indigenous peoples took care to entrench their treaty rights and not the treaties themselves, as many of these treaties include “surrender” and/or “extinguishment” clauses that are at odds with IHLR principles. The Supreme Court of Canada has occasionally referred to such treaties as constitutional instruments, but without any legal analysis on this point. Communication from Joffe P on file with author.

  13. 13.

    The Constitution of the United States, Article VI. For a commentary on the constitutional status of Indian treaties in federal courts see Fredericks and Heibel (2018).

  14. 14.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 17507, Guerin v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 335.

  15. 15.

    McNeil (2008).

  16. 16.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 27.

  17. 17.

    See discussion on Federal Government Initiatives below.

  18. 18.

    The doctrine evolved from US Supreme Court jurisprudence in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat, 543, 1823; Case no. 42, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1, 1831; Case no. 42, Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515, 1832.

  19. 19.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 42, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 16-17, 1831. In 1941 the Supreme Court further expanded on this trust relationship clarifying that the US Federal Government had “charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct, as disclosed in the acts of those who represent it in dealing with the Indians, should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards.”, US Supreme Court, Case no. 348, Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, pp. 296–297.

  20. 20.

    For a commentary on rights extinguishment in Canada see McNeil (2002).

  21. 21.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Calder v. British Columbia, S.C.R. 313, 4 W.W.R. 1.

  22. 22.

    Richardson (2009), pp. 66–67.

  23. 23.

    See discussion on the Western Shoshone case in the US, and the implications of recognition of Aboriginal title in the Canadian context, below.

  24. 24.

    McNeil (1998a); Imai (2009); see also McNeil (1998b).

  25. 25.

    Borrows (2015); Walters (2009), p. 49.

  26. 26.

    As evidenced by the DAPL case, the order to the Secretary of State to expedite the review process for the Keystone XL Pipeline following the 24 January 2017, executive order inviting TransCanada to resubmit its permit application and the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona impacting on cultural significant sites of the Sioux which the Trump administration is attempt to fast track.

  27. 27.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 668, United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111.

  28. 28.

    This followed the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, which attempted to halt the widespread legislatively sanctioned dispossession of Indian lands.

  29. 29.

    Hook and Banks (1993), quoting Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Report S. REP. No. 472, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1982.

  30. 30.

    Ali et al. (2014).

  31. 31.

    Fredericks (2016/2017), pp. 15–26.

  32. 32.

    Williams (1990) and Borrows (1997).

  33. 33.

    Galanda GS, The federal Indian consultation right: A frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. Special Feature Article of the American Bar Association Federal Indian Law Newsletter Fall 2010, 2011, www.fedbar.org/Federal-Indian-Law (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 2; Kinnison (2011), p. 1305.

  34. 34.

    Meaningful consultation is required under statutes, in particular where agencies are required to consult under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub. L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, 1946.

  35. 35.

    Imai (2009), pp. 288–289.

  36. 36.

    Nixon R, Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations for Indian Policy, HR Doc. No. 91-363, 91st congress, 2nd Sess., 1970; Johnson L B, Special Message to Congress on the Problems of the American Indian: The Forgotten American, 1 Pub. Papers 336, 6 March 1968.

  37. 37.

    The policy is quoted in US Court of Appeals, Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 8th Cir. 1979, 603 F.2d 707, pp. 717–721.

  38. 38.

    US Court of Appeals, Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 8th Cir. 1979, 603 F.2d 707, pp. 717–721.

  39. 39.

    The Act was amended in 1994 and incorporated into The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-413, 108 Stat. 4250.

  40. 40.

    Haskew (1999), p. 21; There are at least 10 statutes requiring consultation, see Tsosie (2003), p. 285.

  41. 41.

    Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C., §§ 470aa–470mm, 2006.

  42. 42.

    Energy Policy Act, 42 USC §§ 13201 et seq. Pub. L. No. 102-486, 1992.

  43. 43.

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C., §§ 4321–4370, 2006.

  44. 44.

    National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C., §§ 470 to 470x-6, 2006.

  45. 45.

    Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C., §§ 3001 et seq., 2006.

  46. 46.

    Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C., §§ 3001 et seq., 2006.

  47. 47.

    US Court of Appeals, Nos. 92-15635, 92-16288, 9th Cir. 1994, Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, p. 906.

  48. 48.

    Kinnison (2011), p. 1311; Haskew (1999), p. 24.

  49. 49.

    National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Section 800.16 (f).

  50. 50.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook, 25 November 2008, p. 7.

  51. 51.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook, 25 November 2008, p. 8.

  52. 52.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook, 25 November 2008, p. 7.

  53. 53.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 23.

  54. 54.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 4.

  55. 55.

    US federal Government, Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, §1501.7(a)(1); see also Bureau Land Management National Environmental Policy Act, Handbook H-1790-1, § 6.3.2.

  56. 56.

    US Fish and Wildlife Service, Working with Tribes|American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/tribal-secretarial-order.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  57. 57.

    US Fish and Wildlife Service, Working with Tribes|American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/tribal-secretarial-order.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  58. 58.

    Stern (2009), p. 11.

  59. 59.

    Stern (2009), p. 8.

  60. 60.

    61 Fed. Reg. 26771, 24 May 1996.

  61. 61.

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000; Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation, 5 November 2009.

  62. 62.

    Haskew (1999), p. 74.

  63. 63.

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000.

  64. 64.

    Routel and Holth (2013), p. 450.

  65. 65.

    See Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Guidelines Stating Principles for Working With Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Notice, Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 239, at 73905–73906, 12 December 2014, Department of Justice, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-12/pdf/2014-28903.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  66. 66.

    See Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Guidelines Stating Principles for Working With Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Notice, Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 239, at 73905–73906, 12 December 2014, Department of Justice, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-12/pdf/2014-28903.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  67. 67.

    Haskew (1999), p. 33.

  68. 68.

    Haskew (1999), p. 33.

  69. 69.

    Haskew (1999), p. 62; Routel and Holth (2013), p. 451.

  70. 70.

    Haskew (1999), p. 41.

  71. 71.

    US Court of Appeals, Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, No. CIV 95-3034, 8th Cir. 1979, 603 F.2d, p. 721, versus, US District Court for the District of South Dakota, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, 911 F. Supp. 395, 1995, p. 400.

  72. 72.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 16.

  73. 73.

    Wood (1995a), p. 749.

  74. 74.

    Tsosie (2003), p. 290; see also Wood (1995b), p. 132.

  75. 75.

    US Supreme Court jurisprudence in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat, 543, 1823; Case no. 42, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1, 1831; Case no. 42, Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515, 1832.

  76. 76.

    Anaya (2004), pp. 23–26; Williams (1999), p. 132; Williams (1990).

  77. 77.

    US Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1, 1831, p. 17.

  78. 78.

    US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Kagama, 1886, p. 118 U.S. 375.

  79. 79.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 72-1052, Morton v. Ruiz, 1974, p. 415 U.S. 199; US Supreme Court, Case no. 830, Seminole Nation v. U.S., 1942, p. 316 U.S. 286.

  80. 80.

    Ezra (1989); Riley (2011), pp. 207–208; Fletcher (2012), pp. 83–84; Williams (2005), pp. 47–122.

  81. 81.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, p. 187 U.S. 553.

  82. 82.

    Indian Appropriations Act 1871, (and as amended later) 25 U.S.C. Section 71.

  83. 83.

    US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Kagama, 1886, p. 118 U.S. 375.

  84. 84.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, p. 187 U.S. 553.

  85. 85.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, p. 187 U.S. 553, 565, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause addresses the role of Congress in regulating commerce with Indian tribes. The Court in Lone Wolf interpreted this clause as providing Congress with political power over tribes that is “not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government”.

  86. 86.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, p. 187 U.S. 553, 568; see also Miller (2015), p. 49; Fletcher (2012), p. 74.

  87. 87.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, p. 187 U.S. 553, 564.

  88. 88.

    Routel and Holth (2013), p. 429.

  89. 89.

    US Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1, p. 17; Tsosie (2012), pp. 936–948; Imai (2009), pp. 293–294.

  90. 90.

    The precarious and limited nature of tribal sovereignty, and by extension the duty to consult, is evident in US Supreme Court, Case no. 76-1629, US v. Wheeler, 1987, p. 435 US 313, 323, which held that tribal sovereignty “exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance” and that “Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not withdrawn by treaty or statute”. It has also been argued that the trust doctrine should condition plenary power, see Skibine (2003).

  91. 91.

    Klamath Tribes, WL 924509, 1996, p. 8.

  92. 92.

    US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 98-35043, 98-35231, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Services, 1999, 177 F.3d 800; US Court of Appeals, Case no. 13-16961, Pit River Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service, 2006, 469 F.3d 768.

  93. 93.

    US District Court of Eastern District of Washington, Case no. 10-3050, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010, WL 3434091; see also Galanda GS, The federal Indian consultation right: A frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. Special Feature Article of the American Bar Association Federal Indian Law Newsletter Fall 2010, 2011, www.fedbar.org/Federal-Indian-Law (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 9.

  94. 94.

    For example in US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 98-35043, 98-35231, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Services, 1999, 177 F.3d 800 and US Court of Appeals, Case no. 13-16961, Pit River Tribe v. U. S. Forest Service, 2006, 469 F.3d 768, the Courts found in favour of the tribes while no breach of NEPA consultation requirements was found in, US Court of Appeals, Case no. 07-16336, Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 9th Cir., 2010, pp. 608–610; US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 05-72739, 05-74060, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n., 545 F.3d 1207, 9th Cir., 2008, pp. 1215–1216 and US Court of Appeals, Case no. 0 2-2672, Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Warwick Sewer Auth., 334 F.3d 161, 1st Cir., 2003.

  95. 95.

    US Court of Appeals, Case no. 93-36130, Native Americans for Enola v. US Forest Service, 832 F. Supp. 297, 1995.

  96. 96.

    US Court of Appeals, Case no. 93-2188, Pueblo of Sandia v. United States, 50 F.3d, 1995, p. 857.

  97. 97.

    US District Court, S.D. California, Case no. 10cv2241-LAB (CAB), Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 2010, pp. 1118–119, 1122.

  98. 98.

    US Court of Appeals, Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, No. CIV 95-3034, 8th Cir. 1979, 603 F.2d; Klamath Tribes, WL 924509, 1996; and US District Court of Eastern District of Washington, Case no. 10-3050, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010, WL 3434091.

  99. 99.

    Klamath Tribes, WL 924509, 1996; see also US District Court, S.D. California, Case no. 10cv2241-LAB (CAB), Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 2010, pp. 1118–1119, 1122.

  100. 100.

    See order in relation to the BIA in US District Court for the District of South Dakota, Case no. CIV 95-3034, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Deer, 1995, p. 911 F. Supp. 395; see also Galanda GS, The federal Indian consultation right: A frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. Special Feature Article of the American Bar Association Federal Indian Law Newsletter Fall 2010, 2011, www.fedbar.org/Federal-Indian-Law (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 6.

  101. 101.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 01-1375, United States v. Navajo Nation, 203, p. 537 U.S. 488, see also Pevar SL, The federal-tribal trust relationship, Its origin, nature, and scope, 2009, http://www.saige.org/conf/12CO/TrustResponsibilityOutline%20SAIGE2012.doc (last accessed 28 January 2018).

  102. 102.

    US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 81-1905, 81-1912, 81-1956, 82-1705, 82-1706 and 82-1725, Wilson v. Block, 1983, 708 F.2d 735, pp. 745–747, 464 U.S. 956; quoting U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case no. Civ. 88-971 PHX-RGS, Havasupai v. United States, 1990, p. 752 F. Supp. 1471.

  103. 103.

    US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 06-15371, 06-15436, 06-15455, Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 2007, 479 F.3d 1024, p. 1063. For a commentary on the weakness of protections under the Act see Tsosie (2003), p. 289.

  104. 104.

    US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 06-15371, 06-15436, 06-15455, Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 2007, 479 F.3d 1024, pp. 1039, 1043, 1059.

  105. 105.

    US Court of Appeals, Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians v. Andrus, 8th Cir. 1979, 603 F.2d 707, para. 63; the Court was quoting from US Supreme Court, Case no. 72-1052, Morton v. Ruiz, 1974, p. 415 U.S. 199, 236; which in turn was quoting US Supreme Court, Case no. 348, Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942, p. 316 U.S. 286, 296.

  106. 106.

    US Court of Appeals, Case no. 86-2861, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 1986, 812, 1099 F.2d; see also Haskew (1999), p. 72, fn. 259.

  107. 107.

    US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 81-1905, 81-1912, 81-1956, 82-1705, 82-1706 and 82-1725, Wilson v. Block, 1983, 708 F.2d 735, pp. 745–747, 464 U.S. 956; quoting U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case no. Civ. 88-971 PHX-RGS, Havasupai v. United States, 1990, p. 752 F. Supp. 1471; and US Court of Appeals, Case nos. 06-15371, 06-15436, 06-15455, Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 2007, 479 F.3d 1024, p. 1063.

  108. 108.

    Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946); 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 599. The APA provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity to take a suit which other statutes do not provide.

  109. 109.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 82-354, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1983, p. 463 U.S. 29, 43.

  110. 110.

    For an overview of the DAPL case see Fredericks and Heibel (2018).

  111. 111.

    The Eight Circuit Court’s rulings are an exception in relation to the BIA consultation guidelines.

  112. 112.

    Routel and Holth (2013), p. 435.

  113. 113.

    In general, the US government enjoys sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless it consents to waive that immunity. The government has included a limited waiver of immunity under the Indian Tucker Act 28 U.S.C. § 1505 (2006) provided the “claim is one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or Executive orders of the President, or is one which otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe, band, or group”. As Routel and Holth point out, this “should have no impact on tribal claims for declaratory or injunctive relief for breaches of the trust responsibility” as the Supreme Court has held that “no waiver of sovereign immunity is required if a plaintiff claims that a federal official has violated federal law (including federal common law) provided that the plaintiff names the federal official, rather than the agency itself, as the defendant”. However, lower level courts have failed to make this distinction, thereby failing to “recognize the federal government’s enforceable common law duty to consult with Indian tribes before taking actions that may impact them”, see Routel and Holth (2013), p. 449.

  114. 114.

    Williams (2005), pp. 186–194; Richardson (2009), p. 79.

  115. 115.

    Williams (2005), pp. 193–194; Richardson (2009), p. 79; Imai (2009), p. 314.

  116. 116.

    Wood (1995b), p. 221; Tsosie (2003), p. 289.

  117. 117.

    Stern (2009), p. 12.

  118. 118.

    Galanda GS, The federal Indian consultation right: A frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. Special Feature Article of the American Bar Association Federal Indian Law Newsletter Fall 2010, 2011, www.fedbar.org/Federal-Indian-Law (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 7.

  119. 119.

    Kinnison (2011), p. 1332.

  120. 120.

    Miller (2015), p. 38.

  121. 121.

    Fishel (2007b), p. 621; Haskew (1999), p. 74; Miller (2015), p. 67; Kinnison (2011), p. 1323; Bluemel (2005), p. 529; Imai (2009), p. 302.

  122. 122.

    Haskew (1999), p. 62.

  123. 123.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 27.

  124. 124.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, paras. 63–74.

  125. 125.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 64.

  126. 126.

    US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action, Case no. 16-1534 (JEB), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al, 2017, p. 66.

  127. 127.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 67.

  128. 128.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 72.

  129. 129.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 69.

  130. 130.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 70; see also Colwell C., Why Sacred Sites Were Destroyed for the Dakota Access Pipeline. 26 November 2016, https://www.ecowatch.com/sacred-sites-standing-rock-2103468697.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  131. 131.

    US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action, Case no. 16-1534 (JEB), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al, 2017, p. 66.

  132. 132.

    US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action, Case no. 16-1534 (JEB), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al, 2017, pp. 81–90; see also UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 65.

  133. 133.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 88(g).

  134. 134.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 4.

  135. 135.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  136. 136.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 4, 7.

  137. 137.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 7–10.

  138. 138.

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Improving Tribal Consultation in Infrastructure Projects, 24 May 2017, http://www.achp.gov/docs/achp-infrastructure-report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 9–10, 15.

  139. 139.

    Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult, February 2008, http://caid.ca/CanConPol021508.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  140. 140.

    Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult, March 2011, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  141. 141.

    Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult, March 2011, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675 (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 13.

  142. 142.

    Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfil the Duty to Consult, March 2011, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675 (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 36–58.

  143. 143.

    This involves describing the planned conduct, identifying potential adverse impacts, identifying Aboriginal groups in the area and their potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights, determining if there is a duty to consult and accommodate and the scope of that duty, designing the consultation process and maximising collaboration opportunities, such as with provincial governments, while avoiding consultation fatigue for Aboriginal groups and developing a documentation system.

  144. 144.

    This involves managing issues and concerns that arise in the process, including in relation to the proposed project and adjusting the consultation and accommodation process as necessary.

  145. 145.

    This consists of gathering information supporting the need for accommodation, identifying and selecting measures to realize accommodation and communicating and documenting accommodation measures.

  146. 146.

    This includes accommodation measures and related communication, monitoring, follow-up and evaluation activities.

  147. 147.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 28.

  148. 148.

    According to the guidelines a lead government agency is to be identified and is made accountable for “any consultation processes that may be carried out for federal government activities”.

  149. 149.

    Minister of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult, February 2008, http://caid.ca/CanConPol021508.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 53.

  150. 150.

    UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 16th Session, Speech for the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 25 April 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-northern-affairs/news/2017/05/speaking_notes_forthehonourablecarolynbennettministerofindigenou.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  151. 151.

    National Energy Board Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-7).

  152. 152.

    Papillon M and Rodon T, Indigenous Consent and Natural Resource Extraction Foundations for a Made-in-Canada Approach, IRPP Insight 16, July 2017, http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/insight-no16.pdf (last accessed 28 January 2018).

  153. 153.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017; and Government of Canada, Forward, Together Enabling Canada’s Clean, Safe, and Secure Energy Future Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board, 2017. The NEB report used the weaker language of “seek consent”, rather than “obtain consent”, and its practical proposals to ensure greater indigenous involvement are significantly weaker than the CEAA report.

  154. 154.

    Government of Canada, Forward, Together Enabling Canada’s Clean, Safe, and Secure Energy Future Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board, 2017, p. 46; Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 32.

  155. 155.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 29.

  156. 156.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 30.

  157. 157.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 29.

  158. 158.

    Government of Canada, Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper, 2017, p. 15.

  159. 159.

    See for example Taseko Mines Prosperity mine project that is strongly opposed by the Tsilhqot’in Nation, and despite having been rejected by the federal government following its EIA was approved at the provincial level EIA. For detailed documentation of the Federal government EIA process see http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents-eng.cfm?evaluation=63928&type=1 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  160. 160.

    Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 23.

  161. 161.

    The parties to the BC government are committed “as a foundational piece of their relationship…to support the adoption of UNDRIP, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls-to-action and the Supreme Court of Canada’s Aboriginal title decision in Tsilhqot’in”, see 2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the BC Green Caucus and the BC New Democrat Caucus, http://bcndpcaucus.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/BC-Green-BC-NDP-Agreement_vf-May-29th-2017.pdf (last accessed 1 October).

  162. 162.

    UN General Assembly, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Res. A/61/L.67 and Add. 1, 13 September 2007; An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-262/first-reading (last accessed 1 October). Previous attempts to get the Bill through the second reading had failed under the Conservative government.

  163. 163.

    Bill C-262, https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-262/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  164. 164.

    Trudeau J, Prime Minister announces Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples. 22 February 2017, http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/02/22/prime-minister-announces-working-group-ministers-review-laws-and-policies-related (last accessed 1 October 2018); see also Trudeau J, Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. 15 December 2016, http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/15/statement-prime-minister-canada-advancing-reconciliation-indigenous-peoples (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  165. 165.

    Trudeau J, Prime Minister announces Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples. 22 February 2017, http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/02/22/prime-minister-announces-working-group-ministers-review-laws-and-policies-related (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  166. 166.

    The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established as an outcome of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest class-action settlement in Canadian history, to facilitate reconciliation. It was funded to the tune of 72$M by the Canadian government between 2007 and 2015. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation, Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Vol. 6, 2015, p. 132, para. 92i.

  167. 167.

    Canada Communication Group, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Looking Forward, Looking Back, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol. 1, 1996, pp. 481–482, 489. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) was established in 1991 by Order in Council and was mandated to investigate and propose solutions to the challenges affecting the relationship between Aboriginal peoples, the Canadian government and broader Canadian society.

  168. 168.

    Government of Canada, Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  169. 169.

    Government of Canada, Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  170. 170.

    Supreme Court of Canada, St. Ann’s Island Shooting & Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211, 1950; 2 D.L.R. 225, 1952, p. 232.

  171. 171.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 17507, Guerin v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 335.

  172. 172.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 17507, Guerin v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 335.

  173. 173.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, p. 1108.

  174. 174.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, p. 1108.

  175. 175.

    The charge under the Fishing Act was for “fishing with a drift net longer than that permitted by the terms of his Band’s Indian food fishing licence”.

  176. 176.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, p. 1113.

  177. 177.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, p. 1099; see also Borrows (2002), pp. 108, 240; and Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23603, R v. Badger [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 (S.C.C).

  178. 178.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23799, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1997.

  179. 179.

    Borrows (2002), p. 109. This authority to extinguish Aboriginal title was vested in Parliament under Statute of Westminster, 1931, see McNeil (2002).

  180. 180.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23799, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1997, para. 168.

  181. 181.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23799, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1997, para. 168.

  182. 182.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004.

  183. 183.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004.

  184. 184.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), 6 W.W.R. 243, 2002, para. 33, p. 262.

  185. 185.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, paras. 34, 36.

  186. 186.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 34.

  187. 187.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 27.

  188. 188.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 33.

  189. 189.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 37, 39.

  190. 190.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 24.

  191. 191.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 54.

  192. 192.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 18.

  193. 193.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 27.

  194. 194.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, paras. 10, 27.

  195. 195.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 44.

  196. 196.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 47.

  197. 197.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 45.

  198. 198.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, para. 47.

  199. 199.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29419, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73, 2004, paras. 42, 45, 48.

  200. 200.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29146, Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 SCR 550, para. 32.

  201. 201.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29146, Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 SCR 550, para. 32.

  202. 202.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29146, Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 SCR 550, paras. 3, 6, 7, 12.

  203. 203.

    This duty of the First Nations to consult was also addressed in Court of Appeal for British Columbia, R. v. Douglas et al., 2007 BCCA 265, 278 D.L.R. (4th) 653, para. 45.

  204. 204.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29146, Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 SCR 550, para. 2.

  205. 205.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 29146, Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, [2004] 3 SCR 550, para. 2.

  206. 206.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257.

  207. 207.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 92.

  208. 208.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 76.

  209. 209.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 76.

  210. 210.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 77.

  211. 211.

    This approach was questioned in her dissenting opinion by McLachlin CJ in Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23803, R. v. Van der Peet, 1996 2 S.C.R. 507.

  212. 212.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 87.

  213. 213.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 87.

  214. 214.

    Borrows (2015), pp. 704, 714.

  215. 215.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 38.

  216. 216.

    Borrows (2015), pp. 704, 714.

  217. 217.

    Joffe P, “Veto” and “Consent” – Significant Differences, 26 March 2016, http://quakerservice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Veto-and-Consent-Significant-differences-Joffe.pdf (last accessed 28 January 2018), p. 8.

  218. 218.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23799, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 3 S.C.R. 1010, para. 117; Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 15.

  219. 219.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36776, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41, para. 66.

  220. 220.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36776, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41, para. 41.

  221. 221.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36776, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41, para. 59.

  222. 222.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36692, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, para. 52.

  223. 223.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36692, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, para. 47.

  224. 224.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 36692, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, paras. 31, 47, 52.

  225. 225.

    See for example Lindberg T and Cameron A, SCC rulings suppress Indigenous peoples rights to their land, The Globe and Mail. 28 July 2017, https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/scc-rulings-suppress-indigenous-peoples-rights-to-their-land/article35828687/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& (last accessed 1 October 2018); see also Kanji A, Supreme Court’s colonial roots are showing. The Star, 9 August 2017, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/09/supreme-courts-colonial-roots-are-showing-kanji.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  226. 226.

    Henry M, First Nation questions relationship with Canada following court ruling. The Star, 11 August 2017, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/11/first-nation-questions-relationship-with-canada-following.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  227. 227.

    Federal Court of Appeal, Courtoreille v. Canada, 2016 FCA 311.

  228. 228.

    Abouchar J, Birchall C, Donihee J, Petersen N et al., Is There a Duty to Consult on Legislation? SCC May Decide. Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP, 22 February 2017, http://www.willmsshier.com/docs/default-source/articles/article%2D%2D-is-there-a-duty-to-consult-on-legislation-scc-may-decide-docx.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  229. 229.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 33132, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, 2 SCR 650, para. 44.

  230. 230.

    This built on the Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23803, R. v. Van der Peet, 1996 2 S.C.R. 507; and Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23801, R. v. Gladstone, 1996 2 SCR 723 rulings which had significantly expanded on Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, narrow set of permissible infringements. See dissent of McLachlin J, in Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23803, R. v. Van der Peet, 1996 2 S.C.R. 507.

  231. 231.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 33132, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, 2 S.C.R. 650, paras. 59–60.

  232. 232.

    Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). See also Castellino (2000).

  233. 233.

    This recognition of inherent land, territory and resource rights that are derived from possession and not from State grants is reflected in ILO Convention 107, ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the jurisprudence of UN and regional human rights bodies. The duty to resect, protect and fulfil these inherent rights gives rise to the need for land titling. It is consequently illogical to hold that safeguards, such as FPIC, for those rights should not be required until titling processes has been completed. As Alston has noted in another context “[p]hilosophically, a right is a right, even if a government has refused to acknowledge that fact”, Alston (2004), p. 476.

  234. 234.

    See for example Inter American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka v. Suriname, 2007, para. 192.

  235. 235.

    Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued on 7 October 1763.

  236. 236.

    The Constitution Act, 1982, Section 1 states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

  237. 237.

    Christie (2002), p. 69.

  238. 238.

    Christie (2002), pp. 69–70; Slattery (1983), pp. 251–253.

  239. 239.

    Christie (2002), pp. 69–70.

  240. 240.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 23799, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1997, para. 207.

  241. 241.

    Supreme Court of British Columbia, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700, para. 1358.

  242. 242.

    By approving investments activities, such as mining, forestry or oil and gas concessions, the State establishes “legitimate expectations” of investors for which it can be held liable under contractual or international investment law. Prior warnings of the Supreme Court, such as that in Tsilhqot’in (2014), should be considered by investors when conducting human rights due diligence and should condition their expectations and inform investment tribunal decisions. However, under similar circumstances in other jurisdictions investors have taken governments to arbitration demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation; see for example ICSID, Case no. ARB/14/2, Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru; See also Human Rights Council, 33rd session, UN Doc. A/HRC/33/42, 11 August 2016.

  243. 243.

    Human Rights Council, 33rd session, UN Doc. A/HRC/33/42, 11 August 2016.

  244. 244.

    See Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (KI) case addressed in Doyle C and Cariño J, Making Free Prior & Informed Consent a Reality Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive Sector. May 2013, http://www.ecojesuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Making-FPIC-a-Reality-Report.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 32–36; see also Ariss and Cutfeet (2012).

  245. 245.

    Borrows (2015), p. 714.

  246. 246.

    Borrows (2015), p. 742.

  247. 247.

    UN General Assembly, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Res. A/61/L.67 and Add. 1, 13 September 2007, Article 46(2).

  248. 248.

    Constitution Act, 1982 (80) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s. 1).

  249. 249.

    The Charter provides that “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.” Canadian Charter S. 24. Similarly, the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44. affirms that “Every law of Canada shall … be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared …”.

  250. 250.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 35423, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, para. 64. In 2014, in Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, the Court described Part I (Canadian Charter) and Part II (Section 35) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as “sister provisions, both operating to limit governmental powers, whether federal or provincial”.

  251. 251.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 20311, R. v. Sparrow, 1 S.C.R. 1075, 1990, p. 1109.

  252. 252.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 15.

  253. 253.

    Routel and Holth (2013); Richardson (2009), p. 55; Skibine (1995); Tsosie (2012).

  254. 254.

    For an overview of UN jurisprudence in relation to the extractive industry since the adoption of the UNDRIP see Doyle and Whitmore (2014).

  255. 255.

    Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1st session, General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples, CERD General Recommendation XXIII, 18 August 1997.

  256. 256.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc. CERD/C/SR.2142, 18th session, 2 March 2012, para. 39; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc CERD/C/USA/CO/6, 72nd session, 8 May 2008, para 29.

  257. 257.

    For an overview of the case see Fishel (2007a, b) and Kinnison (2011).

  258. 258.

    Fishel (2007a), p. 50.

  259. 259.

    US Supreme Court, Case no. 275, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 1903, p. 568 see also US Supreme Court, Case no. 83-1476, United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39, 1985, pp. 44–45.

  260. 260.

    Canton S A, Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 75/02, Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, Case 11.140, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L./V/II.117, Doc. 1 rev. 1, 27 December 2002, paras. 131–32.

  261. 261.

    Fishel (2007a), p. 69.

  262. 262.

    Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/6/Add.1, 5 February 2009, para. 19; CERD Follow up letter to the United States, 28 September 2009.

  263. 263.

    US Court of Appeals, Case no. 07-16336, Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 9th Cir., 2010, pp. 608–610.

  264. 264.

    Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, 23 April 2014.

  265. 265.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people on her mission to the United States of America, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, 36th session, 9 August 2017, para. 87.

  266. 266.

    Human Rights Council, General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/52/Add.2, 27th session, 4 July 2014, para. 98.

  267. 267.

    UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 167/1984, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40) at 1 (1990), Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, 26 March 1990.

  268. 268.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the twenty-first to twenty-third periodic reports of Canada, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, 25 August 2017, para. 20.

  269. 269.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the twenty-first to twenty-third periodic reports of Canada, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, 25 August 2017, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, para. 20.

  270. 270.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the twenty-first to twenty-third periodic reports of Canada, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, 25 August 2017, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, para. 20.

  271. 271.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the twenty-first to twenty-third periodic reports of Canada, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, 25 August 2017, UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, para. 20.

  272. 272.

    However, as noted by the Court in Tsilhqot’in (2014) there may be some activities that cannot be justified on the basis of obtaining FPIC.

  273. 273.

    As the CEAA review noted “we did not hear strident opposition to the development of projects”, see Government of Canada, Expert Panel Report, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada, 2017, p. 10.

  274. 274.

    See report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples discussing the importance of avoiding the use of veto language when discussing FPIC, Human Rights Council, Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural Rights, including the right to Development, UN Doc A/HRC/12/34, 14 July 2009. For a discussion on the notion of consent as a veto power see Doyle (2015), pp. 161–168, see also Joffe P, “Veto” and “Consent” – Significant Differences, 26 March 2016, http://quakerservice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Veto-and-Consent-Significant-differences-Joffe.pdf (last accessed 28 January 2018).

  275. 275.

    Galanda GS, The federal Indian consultation right: A frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. Special Feature Article of the American Bar Association Federal Indian Law Newsletter Fall 2010, 2011, www.fedbar.org/Federal-Indian-Law (last accessed 1 October 2018); Wood (1995b), Tsosie (2003), Williams (2005), Anaya (2004) and Newton et al. (2012).

  276. 276.

    Jenkins (2001).

  277. 277.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Case no. 34986, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, 2 SCR 257, para. 69.

  278. 278.

    Doyle (2015), pp. 1–70.

  279. 279.

    Williams (2005), pp. 161–195.

  280. 280.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta), 1 S.C.R. 313, 1987, para. 57.

  281. 281.

    Haskew (1999), p. 28.

  282. 282.

    These include the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation. See Doyle and Carino (2013), pp. 29–40.

  283. 283.

    Doyle and Carino (2013), pp. 29–40; Fredericks (2016).

  284. 284.

    For example the signing of an accord by over 150 nations and tribes opposing the Tar Sands Pipeline “Indigenous Peoples Don’t Consent To Pipelines. It’s Time We Listened”. 8 August 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-hudema/indigenous-peoples-dont-consent-to-pipelines-its-time-we-list_a_23071485/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  285. 285.

    General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015 (adopted without a vote).

  286. 286.

    Rio+20 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, The future we want, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012, UN Doc. A/CONF.216/L.1, 19 June 2012, para. 49. Endorsed by UN General Assembly, The future we want, UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, 27 July 2012 (adopted without vote).

  287. 287.

    General Assembly, Draft Resolution, American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Res. AG/doc.5537, adopted without vote by Organization of American States, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 46th sess., 15 June 2016, Article XIX.

  288. 288.

    IFC Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples, 2012, https://www.ifc.org (last accessed 1 October 2018); Equator Principles on Environmental and Social Management, http://www.equator-principles.com/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  289. 289.

    ICMM Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement (2013). See also FPIC requirements of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), http://www.responsiblemining.net/ (last accessed 1 October 2018); and the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI), https://aluminium-stewardship.org/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  290. 290.

    Human Rights Council, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, UN Doc A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011.

  291. 291.

    Torrance M, Banks look to apply free prior and informed consent in North America Why global banks may start to apply the concept of:free prior and informed consent: to North America. Canadian Mining Journal, 13 September 2017, http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/features/banks-look-apply-free-prior-informed-consent-north-america/ (last accessed 1 October 2018); see also BankTrack, Ten Equator banks demand decisive action on Indigenous peoples following DAPL debacle Banks from the Netherlands, France, Spain and Italy press Equator Principles Association for change. 16 June 2017, https://www.banktrack.org/news/ten_equator_banks_demand_decisive_action_on_indigenous_peoples_following_dapl_debacle (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  292. 292.

    Coumans (2010).

  293. 293.

    Hoberg G and Taylor S, Between Consent and Accommodation, What is the Government Duty to Accommodate First Nations Concerns with Resource Development Projects?. 2011, http://greenpolicyprof.org (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  294. 294.

    Hoberg G, What is the Role of First Nations in Decision-Making on Crown Government Resource Development Projects?. 20 January 2015, http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=996 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

References

  • Ali SH, Jorgensen M, Kalt JP, Krakoff S, McInnis A, Medford AB, Youpee-Roll A (2014) A Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, On improving tribal-corporate relations in the mining sector: a white paper on strategies for both sides of the table. Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston P (2004) Core human rights and the transformation of the international labour rights regime. Eur J Int Law 15:457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anaya SJ (2004) Indigenous peoples in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariss R, Cutfeet J (2012) Keeping the land, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, reconciliation and Canadian law. Fernwood Publishing, Nova Scotia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluemel EB (2005) Accommodating native American cultural activities on federal public lands. Idaho Law Rev 41:475–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrows J (1997) Wampum at Niagara: the royal proclamation, Canadian legal history, and self-government. In: Auch M (ed) Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada: essays on law, equality, and respect for difference. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp 155–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrows J (2002) Recovering Canada: the resurgence of Indigenous law. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrows J (2015) The durability of terra nullius: Tsilhqot’in nation v. British Columbia. UBC Law Rev 48(3):701–742

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2000) International law and self-determination: the interplay of the politics of territorial possession with formulations of post-colonial national identity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christie G (2002) Judicial justification of recent developments in aboriginal law. Can J Law Soc 17(2):41–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coumans C (2010) Alternative accountability mechanisms and mining: the problems of effective impunity, human rights, and agency. Can J Dev Stud 30(1–2):27–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle C (2015) Indigenous peoples, title to territory, rights and resources: the transformative role of free prior and informed consent. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle C, Whitmore A (2014) Indigenous peoples and the extractive industries: towards a rights respecting engagement. Tebtebba, Middlesex University and PIPLinks, Manila

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezra JBK (1989) The trust doctrine: a source of protection for native American sacred sites. Cathol Univ Law Rev 38(3):705–736

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishel JA (2007a) The Western Shoshone struggle: opening doors for indigenous rights. Intercult Hum Rights Law Rev 2:41–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishel JA (2007b) United States called to task on indigenous rights: the Western Shoshone struggle and success at the international level. Am Indian Law Rev 31:619–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher MLM (2012) Tribal consent. Stan J Civ Rights Civ Liberties 8:45–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredericks CF (2016/2017) Operationalizing free prior and informed consent. Albany Law Rev 80(2):429–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredericks CF, Heibel JD (2018) Standing rock, the sioux treaties, and the limits of the supremacy clause. Univ Colo Law Rev 89:477–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskew DC (1999) Federal consultation with Indian tribes: the foundation of enlightened policy decisions, or another badge of shame? Am Indian Law Rev 24(1):21–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook J, Banks B (1993) The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982. Nat Resour Environ 7(4):11–13, 52–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Imai S (2009) Indigenous self-determination and the state. In: Richardson BJ, Imai S, McNeil K (eds) Indigenous peoples and the law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 285–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins D (2001) John Marshall’s Aboriginal rights theory and its treatment in Canadian jurisprudence. UBC Law Rev 35:1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe P (2010) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Canadian government positions incompatible with genuine reconciliation. NJCLPJ 26:121–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnison AJ (2011) Indigenous consent: rethinking U.S. consultation policies in light of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Arizona Law Rev 53:1301–1332

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil K (1998a) Aboriginal rights in Canada: from title to land to territorial sovereignty. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 5(2):253–298

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil K (1998b) Defining Aboriginal title in the 90’s: has the Supreme Court finally got it right?. 12th Annual Roberts Lecture, 25 March 1998, York University, Toronto, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil K (2002) Extinguishment of Aboriginal title in Canada: treaties, legislation, and judicial discretion. Ottawa Law Rev 33(2):301–346

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil K (2008) Fiduciary obligations and aboriginal peoples. In: Berryman JB, Gillen MR, Woodman F (eds) The law of trusts: a contextual approach, 2nd edn. Emond Montgomery, Toronto, pp 907–976

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil K (2009) Judicial treatment of indigenous land rights in the common law. In: Richardson BJ, Imai S, McNeil K (eds) Indigenous peoples and the law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 257–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RJ (2015) Consultation or consent: the United States’ duty to confer with American Indian governments. North Dakota Law Rev 91:37–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton NJ, Cohen F, Anderson R (2012) Cohen’s handbook of federal indian law. LexisNexis, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Prucha FP (1994) American Indian Treaties: the history of a political anomaly. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson BJ (2009) The Dydic Character of US Indian Law. In: Richardson BJ, Imai S, McNeil K (eds) Indigenous peoples and the law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 51–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Riley AR (2011) The apex of congress’ plenary power over Indian affairs: the story of lone wolf v. Hitchcock. In: Goldberg C, Washburn KK, Frickey PP (eds) Indian law stories. Foundation Press, New York, pp 189–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Routel C, Holth J (2013) Toward genuine tribal consultation in the 21st century. Univ Mich J Law Reform 46(2):417–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skibine AT (1995) Reconciling federal and state power inside Indian reservations with the right of tribal self-government and the process of self-determination. Utah Law Rev 4:1105–1156

    Google Scholar 

  • Skibine AT (2003) Integrating trust doctrine into the constitution. Tulsa Law Rev 39(2):247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Slattery B (1983) The constitutional guarantee of aboriginal and treaty rights. Queen’s Law J 8(1):232–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern WE (2009) Developing energy projects on federal lands: tribal rights, roles, consultation, and other interests (a developer’s perspective). Paper no. 15 A Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Fdn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsosie R (2003) The conflict between the “public trust” and the “Indian trust” doctrines: federal public land policy and native nations. Tulsa Law Rev 39(2):271–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsosie R (2012) Reconceptualizing tribal rights: can self-determination be actualized within the U.S. constitutional structure? Lewis Clark Law Rev 12(4):923–950

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters MD (2009) The emergence of indigenous rights law in Canada. In: Richardson BJ, Imai S, McNeil K (eds) Indigenous peoples and the law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 21–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RA Jr (1990) The American Indian in western legal thought: the discourses of conquest. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RA Jr (1999) Linking arms together: American Indian treaty visions of law and peace 1600–1800. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RA Jr (2005) Like a loaded weapon: the Rehnquist Court, Indian rights, and the legal history of racism in America. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wood MC (1995a) Fulfilling the executive’s trust responsibility toward the native nations on environmental issues: a partial critique of the Clinton administration’s promises and performance. Environ Law 25(3):733–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood MC (1995b) Protecting the attributes of native sovereignty: a new trust paradigm for federal actions affecting tribal lands and resources. Utah Law Rev 1:109–238

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Stefan Disko, Carla Fredericks, James Jide, Paul Joffe, and the editors Markus Krajewski and Ricarda Rösch for their comments and input. Any errors or omissions that remain are the author’s sole responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlesex University School of Law, London, UK

    Cathal M. Doyle

Authors
  1. Cathal M. Doyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathal M. Doyle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Isabel Feichtner

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Ricarda Roesch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Doyle, C.M. (2019). The Evolving Duty to Consult and Obtain Free Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples for Extractive Projects in the United States and Canada. In: Feichtner, I., Krajewski, M., Roesch, R. (eds) Human Rights in the Extractive Industries. Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11382-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11382-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11381-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11382-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation