Historical indigenous peoples' land claims: A comparative and international approach to the common law doctrine on indigenous title

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 583-611

  Gilbert, Jérémie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547974830     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/lei183     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No 169), reprinted in ILM 1382 (1989). Only two Commonwealth countries - Fiji and Dominica - have ratified the Convention.
2. See General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/163 (1994) and Resolution A/RES/ 59/174 (2005).
3. Economic and Social Council Resolution 2000/22.
4. See UN Doc A/HRC/1/L. 10 (30 June 2006); and also UN Doc E/CNA/Sub.2/ 1994/56.
5. See P Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (MUP, Manchester, 2002);
6. and J Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004).
7. See J Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors (Transnational Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff, Ardsley, 2006)
8. See 'Indigenous Peoples and their relationship to Land: Final working paper prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Erica-Irene A. Daes' UN Doc E/ CNA/SUB.2/2001/21.
9. See E Barkan, The Guilt of Nations, Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2000).
10. See G Ulrich and L Krabbe Boserup (eds), Reparations: Redressing Past Wrongs, Human Rights in Development Yearbook 2001 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2003).
11. The most recent illustration includes the resolution proposed by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly deferring 'consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples'. See document A/C.3/61/L.57/Rev.1 (28 Nov 2006).
12. G Yunupingu (ed), Our Land is our Life, Land Rights, Past Present and Future (University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1997).
13. See also P Patton, 'The Translation of Indigenous Land into Property: The Mere Analogy of English Jurisprudence' (2000) 6 Parallax 25-38.
14. This is also true for New Zealand. However, the situation remains particular as the recognition of native title is flowing from the existence of the Treaty of Waitangi. See Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643, 2003 NZLR.
15. See also US Supreme Court, Oneida Indian Nation v Country of Oneida (1974) 414 US 661.
16. In general, see K McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title (OUP, Oxford, 1989).
17. A Reilly and A Genovese, 'Claiming the Past: Historical Understanding in Australian Native Title Jurisprudence (2004) 3 Indigenous Law Journal 19.
18. Looking at Canada, Australia and New Zealand McHugh refers to the emergence of a 'jurisprudence of reconciliation': PG McHugh, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 539-611.
19. See also K McNeil, 'Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin' (2003) 2 Indigenous Law Journal 1.
20. See J Miller and R Kumar (eds), Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries (OUP, Oxford, 2007).
21. For references, see McNeil (n 12).
22. P Haveman (ed), Indigenous Peoples Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (OUP, Oxford, 1999).
23. See Adong bin Kuwau v Kerajaan Negeri Johor [1997] 1 MLJ 418, [1998] 2 MLJ 158.
24. ibid 430.
25. On this issue see R Bulan, 'Native Title as a Proprietary Right under the Constitution in Peninsula Malaysia: A Step in the Right Direction?' (2001) 9 Asia Pacific Law Review 83.
26. Republic of Kenya-In the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi Civil Case No 238 of 1999 (OS). See also High Court at Nakuru, Moses Lesiamon Ole Mpoe v Commissioner Of Lands [2005].
27. Maya indigenous community of the Toledo District v Belize, Case 12.053, Report No 40/04, Inter-Am CHR, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. 122 Doc 5 rev 1 at 727 (2004) Para 107; and see the conclusion of the Commission on this point, Para 131.
28. ibid para 48.
29. High Court of Botswana, Roy Sesana and Ke/wa Setlohobogwa v The Attorney General, Misca No 52 of 2002 (13 Dec 2006).
30. See the case filed in 1998 by six leaders from the Akawaio and Arecuna communities for references: L Anselmo and F MacKay, Indigenous Peoples, Land Rights and Mining in the Upper Mazaruni (Global Law Association, Tilburg, 1999).
31. For references, see The Bakweri Land Claims Committee (BLCC) v The Republic of Cameroon (Case No 260/2002), African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
32. R Zimmermann and D Visser, Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996).
33. See V Jaichand, Restitution of Land Rights: A Workbook (Lex Patria, Johannesburg, 1997).
34. Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994-Act No 22 [as amended by Act No 84, 1995 and Act No 78, 1996].
35. For an overview of the proceedings, see L Amena Hoq, 'Land Restitution and the Doctrine of Aboriginal Title: Ritchersveld Community v. Alexkor Ltd and Another' (2002) 18 SAJHR 421.
36. For an illustration, see Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and another LCC151/98 (22 March 2001), paras 44-8, 52.
37. The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Aftica, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 Mar 2003).
38. ibid para 8.
39. M Barry, 'Now another Thing must Happen: Richtersveld and the Dilemmas of Land Reform in Post-Apartheid South Africa' (2004) 20 SAJHR 355, 368.
40. Constitutional Court of South Africa, 2003 (12) BCLR 1301 (CCO) para 51.
41. This point is also supported by decision regarding indigenous peoples' land rights in Québec, see R v Côué [1996] 3 SCR 139.
42. For a discussion on the implications/limits of such integration, see K Lehmann, 'Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Rights and the Right to Culture' (2004) 20 SAJHR 86.
43. On the notion of exclusivity of such occupation, see High Court of Australia, Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1.
44. St Catherine's Milling and Lumber v The Queen (1889) 14 App Cas 46; Re Southern Rhodesia [1919] AC 211.
45. Johnson and Braham's Lessee v M'Intosh 21 US (8 Wheat) 1823;
46. Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 US 1 (1830)
47. Worcester v Georgia, 31 US (1832).
48. eg the US Supreme Court in the 1833 case of United States v Percheman affirmed that when there is a change of sovereignty: 'the people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other, and their right to property, remain undisturbed', United States v Percheman (1833) 7 Pet 6132 US, 87;
49. see also: Certain Questions Relating to Settlers of German Origin in the Territory Ceded by Germany to Poland PCIJ Ser B No 6 (10 Sept 1923).
50. See, eg, Vajesingji Joravarsingji v Secretary of State for India (1924) LR 51 Ind App 357.
51. See High Court of Australia, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 107 ALR 1, paras 89 and 182;
52. Supreme Court of Canada, R v Van der Peet 2 SCR (1996) 507, paras 18-19.
53. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 107 ALR 1, 58.
54. J Borrows and L Rotman, 'The Sui Generis Nature of Aboriginal Rights: Does it make a Difference?' (1997) 36 Alta L Rev 9
55. The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 Mar 2003).
56. ibid para 9.
57. Nor Anak Nyawai v Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd [2001] 2 Current Law Journal (Malaysia) 769.
58. See confirmation of such approach by the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and 3 Ors v Sagong Bin Tasi and 6 Ors 2005 [CA].
59. N Pearson, 'The Concept of Native Title at Common Law' in Yunupingu (n 11).
60. For an illustration, see Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 3 SCR 1010.
61. Lamer CJ in R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 50.
62. Island of Palmas Arbitration 2 R Int'l Arb Awards 831 (1928).
63. See TO Elias, 'The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law' (1980) 74 AJIL 285.
64. Island of Palmas Arbitration 2 R Int'l Arb Awards 831 (1928).
65. Such reference would seem comparable to the principle of non retroactivity which is widely accepted at the national level.
66. Elias (n 54) 286.
67. With some limitations on conquest, see Gilbert (n 6) ch 2.
68. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23;
69. (1992) 175 CLR 1 FC 92/014 (3 June 1992), para 41.
70. F MacKay, Addressing Past Wrongs, Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to Restitution of Land and Resources (Oct 2002), at .
71. Sandra Lovelace v Canada, Communication No 24/1977 (14 Aug 1979), UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984) 10, paras 10, 11, 12, and 13.
72. Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Communication No 167/1984 (26 Mar 1990), UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/45/40) (1990) 1, para 33.
73. See Simunek, Hastings, Tuzilova and Prochazka v The Czech Republic Communication No 516/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995).
74. Representations under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution may be made by employers' and workers' organizations who claim that a State has failed to observe a ratified Convention. For details, see .
75. Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169), made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Associated Workers, Doc GB.273/15/6; G13.276/16/3.
76. Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Denmark of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169), made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Sulinermik Inuussutissarsiuteqartut Kattuffiat (SIK), Doc GB.277/18/3; GB.280/18/5, submitted 1999.
77. ibid.
78. Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169), made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Confederación Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres (CEOSL), Doc GB.277/18/4, GB.282/14/2, submitted 2000.
79. Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/ 02, Doc 5 rev 1 (2002) 860, see para 167-IACHR.
80. See P Ormanecha, 'Moiwana Village: The Inter-American Court and the "Continuing Violation" Doctrine' (2006) 19 Harvard Human Rights Journal, 283.
81. A Reilly, 'The Australian Experience of Aboriginal Title: Lessons for South Africa' (2000) 16 SAJHR 512, 515.
82. ibid.
83. Lehmann (n 37) 111-12.
84. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) para 154.
85. Lehmann (n 37) 111.
86. General Comment No 23: The rights of minorities (Art 27): UN Doc CCPR/C/ 21/Rev.1/Add.5, General Comment No 23. (General Comments) para 7.
87. I Länsman v Finland (Communication No 511/1992), UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.3.
88. Apirana Mahuika v New Zealand, Communication No 547/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000) para 9.4.
89. See notably R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 40.
90. See R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075
91. and R v Badger [1996] 1 SCR 771.
92. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) 1095, para 138.
93. ibid 1089, para 128.
94. K McNeil, 'The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title' (Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, 2000).
95. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) 1091, para 131.
96. A Connolly, 'Judicial Conceptions of tradition in Canadian Aboriginal Rights Law' (2006) 7 Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 27.
97. ibid 33.
98. R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507, para 179.
99. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) para 153 (Lamer CJ).
100. R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 64.
101. Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria [1998] FCA 1606, para 129.
102. ibid.
103. ibid 46.
104. ibid, majority judgment, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ, paras 86-7.
105. Reilly and Genovese (n 13).
106. ibid 21.
107. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14 (14 Apr 2005) para 17.
108. Reilly and Genovese (n 13) 38.
109. As the authors highlights in this context metahistory 'means the propounding of universal explanations of historical processes', ibid 36.
110. Supreme Court of Canada: R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075.
111. See S Dorsett, 'Clear and Plain Intention Extinguishment of Native Title in Australia and Canada post-Wik' (1997) 6 Griffith Law Review 96.
112. See, eg, High Court of Australia, Western Australia v Ward; Attorney General (NT) v Ward; Ningamara v Northern Territory; Ward v Crosswalk Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 28.
113. N Pearson, 'Principles of Communal Native Title' (2000) 5 ILB 19.
114. K McNeil, 'The Vulnerability of Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and Canada' (2004) 42 Osgoode Hall L J 271-302.
115. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
116. McNeil (n 103) 271.
117. ibid.
118. EI Daes, Special Rapporteur, 'Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous People and their relationship to land' Working Paper, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/17, para 29.
119. ibid para 31.
120. Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples by the Grand Council of the Cree (Eeyou Astchee) Montreal, Québec, 18 Nov 1993, 7.
121. Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA).
122. CERD, Decision 1 (66), para 6 UN Doc CERD/C/66/NZL/Dec 1.
123. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/ CO/5 (2005), para 8.
124. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary and Carrie Dann v United States Report No 113/01, Case No 11. 140 (15 Oct 2001).
125. ibid para 3.
126. See Shoshone Tribe v US 11 ICC 387 (1962).
127. Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 53.
128. ibid.
129. ibid para 82.
130. Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/ 02, Inter-Am CHR, Doc 5 rev 1 at 860 (2002) 27, para 100.
131. ibid 41, para 145.
132. ibid para 145.
133. Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 140.
134. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23, Art 27 (55th session, 1994), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 (1994) 38, para 7.
135. Länsman v Finland, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.5.
136. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.105, para 8 (1999).
137. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, para 8 (2006).
138. eg see comments by the Government of Australia on the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14/Add.1 (2006).
139. General Recommendation XXIII, Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/52/18, annex V, para 4(d) (1997).
140. ibid para 5.
141. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14, Para 16
142. UN Doc CERD/C/SR. 1235; on this issue, see P Thornberry (n 5) 217.
143. See Expanded working paper submitted by Mrs Antoanella-Iulia Motoc and the Tebtebba Foundation offering guidelines to govern the practice of Implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in relation to development affecting their lands and natural resources, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2005/WP.1.
144. M Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/24/Add 1 (26 Feb 2002).
145. Extinguishment is 'the cessation or cancellation of some right or interest'. Black's Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson West, St Paul, 2004) 623.
146. A-M Slaughter, 'Judicial Globalization' (2000) 40 Va J Int'l L 1103.
147. S Wiessner, 'Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Analysis' (1999) 12 Har Hum Rts J 57.
148. See J Gilbert, 'Indigenous Rights in the Making: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (2007) 14 IJMGR (forthcoming).