Advertisement

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

  • Cathal M. DoyleEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights book series (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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston P (2004) Core human rights and the transformation of the international labour rights regime. Eur J Int Law 15:457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anaya SJ (2004) Indigenous peoples in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariss R, Cutfeet J (2012) Keeping the land, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, reconciliation and Canadian law. Fernwood Publishing, Nova ScotiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bluemel EB (2005) Accommodating native American cultural activities on federal public lands. Idaho Law Rev 41:475–537Google Scholar
  6. 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 155–172Google Scholar
  7. Borrows J (2002) Recovering Canada: the resurgence of Indigenous law. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  8. Borrows J (2015) The durability of terra nullius: Tsilhqot’in nation v. British Columbia. UBC Law Rev 48(3):701–742Google Scholar
  9. 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, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  10. Christie G (2002) Judicial justification of recent developments in aboriginal law. Can J Law Soc 17(2):41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coumans C (2010) Alternative accountability mechanisms and mining: the problems of effective impunity, human rights, and agency. Can J Dev Stud 30(1–2):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doyle C (2015) Indigenous peoples, title to territory, rights and resources: the transformative role of free prior and informed consent. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Doyle C, Whitmore A (2014) Indigenous peoples and the extractive industries: towards a rights respecting engagement. Tebtebba, Middlesex University and PIPLinks, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  14. Ezra JBK (1989) The trust doctrine: a source of protection for native American sacred sites. Cathol Univ Law Rev 38(3):705–736Google Scholar
  15. Fishel JA (2007a) The Western Shoshone struggle: opening doors for indigenous rights. Intercult Hum Rights Law Rev 2:41–92Google Scholar
  16. 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 31:619–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fletcher MLM (2012) Tribal consent. Stan J Civ Rights Civ Liberties 8:45–112Google Scholar
  18. Fredericks CF (2016/2017) Operationalizing free prior and informed consent. Albany Law Rev 80(2):429–482Google Scholar
  19. Fredericks CF, Heibel JD (2018) Standing rock, the sioux treaties, and the limits of the supremacy clause. Univ Colo Law Rev 89:477–532Google Scholar
  20. 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):21–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hook J, Banks B (1993) The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982. Nat Resour Environ 7(4):11–13, 52–54Google Scholar
  22. 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 285–314Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins D (2001) John Marshall’s Aboriginal rights theory and its treatment in Canadian jurisprudence. UBC Law Rev 35:1–43Google Scholar
  24. Joffe P (2010) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Canadian government positions incompatible with genuine reconciliation. NJCLPJ 26:121–229Google Scholar
  25. 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 53:1301–1332Google Scholar
  26. McNeil K (1998a) Aboriginal rights in Canada: from title to land to territorial sovereignty. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 5(2):253–298Google Scholar
  27. 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, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  28. McNeil K (2002) Extinguishment of Aboriginal title in Canada: treaties, legislation, and judicial discretion. Ottawa Law Rev 33(2):301–346Google Scholar
  29. 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 907–976Google Scholar
  30. 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 257–284Google Scholar
  31. Miller RJ (2015) Consultation or consent: the United States’ duty to confer with American Indian governments. North Dakota Law Rev 91:37–98Google Scholar
  32. Newton NJ, Cohen F, Anderson R (2012) Cohen’s handbook of federal indian law. LexisNexis, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. Prucha FP (1994) American Indian Treaties: the history of a political anomaly. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 51–80Google Scholar
  35. 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 189–228Google Scholar
  36. Routel C, Holth J (2013) Toward genuine tribal consultation in the 21st century. Univ Mich J Law Reform 46(2):417–475Google Scholar
  37. 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 4:1105–1156Google Scholar
  38. Skibine AT (2003) Integrating trust doctrine into the constitution. Tulsa Law Rev 39(2):247–270Google Scholar
  39. Slattery B (1983) The constitutional guarantee of aboriginal and treaty rights. Queen’s Law J 8(1):232–273Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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):271–311Google Scholar
  42. Tsosie R (2012) Reconceptualizing tribal rights: can self-determination be actualized within the U.S. constitutional structure? Lewis Clark Law Rev 12(4):923–950Google Scholar
  43. 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 21–50Google Scholar
  44. Williams RA Jr (1990) The American Indian in western legal thought: the discourses of conquest. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams RA Jr (1999) Linking arms together: American Indian treaty visions of law and peace 1600–1800. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 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, MinneapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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):733–800Google Scholar
  48. Wood MC (1995b) Protecting the attributes of native sovereignty: a new trust paradigm for federal actions affecting tribal lands and resources. Utah Law Rev 1:109–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlesex University School of LawLondonUK

Personalised recommendations