IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v38y2008i2p343-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Treaty or Not to Treaty? Aboriginal Peoples and Comprehensive Land Claims Negotiations in Canada -super-1

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Alcantara

Abstract

Although the federal comprehensive land claims (CLC) process has become an almost hegemonic paradigm of government-Aboriginal relations in Canada, this article argues that Aboriginal groups should consider abandoning the CLC process if they have not been able to make significant progress towards completing treaties. Previously, many Aboriginal groups had no better option but to negotiate CLC treaties to achieve their goals. Now, however, a number of institutional developments have given Aboriginal groups a range of other options that are worth pursuing instead of CLC treaties. These developments are: Two judicial decisions handed down in 2004 and the emergence of three policy instruments outside of the treaty process: Self-government agreements, bilateral agreements, and the First Nations Land Management Act. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Alcantara, 2008. "To Treaty or Not to Treaty? Aboriginal Peoples and Comprehensive Land Claims Negotiations in Canada -super-1," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 343-369, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:38:y:2008:i:2:p:343-369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjm036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aragón, Fernando M., 2015. "Do better property rights improve local income?: Evidence from First Nations' treaties," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 43-56.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:38:y:2008:i:2:p:343-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.