Tous les articles par laetitiaguerlain

Ablavsky on Original Meanings of « Indian Tribes »

Gregory Ablavsky, Stanford Law School, has posted « With the Indian Tribes »: Race, Citizenship, and Original Constitutional Meanings, which is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review.

Under black-letter law declared in Morton v. Mancari, federal classifications of individuals as “Indian” based on membership in a federally recognized tribe rely on a political, not a racial, distinction, and so are generally subject only to rational-basis review. But the Supreme Court recently questioned this long-standing dichotomy, resulting in renewed challenges arguing that, because tribal membership usually requires Native ancestry, such classifications are race-based.

The term “Indian” appears twice in the original U.S. Constitution. A large and important scholarly literature has developed arguing that this specific constitutional inclusion of “Indian tribes” mitigates equal protection concerns. Missing from these discussions, however, is much consideration of these terms’ meaning at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Most scholars have concluded that there is a lack of evidence on this point—a “gap” in the historical record.

This Essay uses legal, intellectual, and cultural history to close that “gap” and reconstruct the historical meanings of “tribe” and “Indian” in the late eighteenth century. Rather than a single “original meaning,” it finds duality: Anglo-Americans of the time also alternated between referring to Native communities as “nations,” which connoted equality, and “tribes,” which conveyed Natives’ purported uncivilized status. They also defined “Indians” both in racial terms, as non-white, and in jurisdictional terms, as non-citizens.

These contrasting meanings, I argue, have potentially important doctrinal implications for current debates in Indian law, depending on the interpretive approach applied. Although the term “tribe” had at times derogatory connotations, its use in the Constitution bolsters arguments emphasizing the significance of Native descent and arguably weakens current attacks on Native sovereignty based on invidious legal distinctions among Native communities. Similarly, there is convincing evidence to read “Indian” in the Constitution in political terms, justifying Morton’s dichotomy. But interpreting “Indian” as a “racial” category also provides little solace to Indian law’s critics, since it fundamentally undermines their insistence on a colorblind Constitution.

IDAES, UNSAM invita a la charla: La invisibilización de un crimen: feminicidios en contextos indígenas en Chiapas.

La Universidad Nacional de San Martín y Instituto de Altos Estudios Sociales invitan a la charla: La invisibilización de un crimen: feminicidios en contextos indígenas en Chiapas.

Impartida por la Dra. Perla Orquídea Fragoso Lugo, catedrática CONACYT/ CESMECA-UNICACH, México.

El Jueves 30 de noviembre a las 18:00hrs.

En Sede Edificio Volta

Av. R. S. Peña 832, piso 6, CABA

Aula 605

COMMISSION ON LEGAL PLURALISM 

COMMISSION ON LEGAL PLURALISM

Important announcement: New location and date for the next biennial course and conference of the Commission on Legal Pluralism: 17-24 August 2018, Ottawa, Canada

In March, the Executive Body of the Commission on Legal Pluralism decided to postpone and relocate the course and conference planned for August 2017 in Syracuse, NY. This decision was taken in response to worries over the US government’s travel ban and the increased hostility to Muslims and other visitors to the United States at immigration and customs.

The University of Ottawa has graciously offered to host the Legal Pluralism conference and course in August of 2018. The conference will take place from 22 to 24 August 2018, as usual preceded by our course from 17 to 20 August. Please mark these dates in your calendar!

The theme of the conference ‘Citizenship, Legal Pluralism and Governance in the Age of Globalization’ remains unchanged. Please find here a renewed call for panels, which is open until 31 October 2017. While all accepted panels are of course very welcome again, we need everyone to re-submit their panels to confirm they want to partake in the 2018 conference. We also invite new panel proposals.

Prior to the conference, we will organise an international course, covering theories, knowledge and methodologies of legal pluralism. Accepted candidates for the course in Syracuse will also be contacted about their participation in the 2018 course. Additional interested candidates can apply until 1 November 2017. If you are interested in learning more about the course, please have a look here!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at jubink@law.uci.edu. We are hoping to see many of you in Ottawa in August of 2018!

November 2017 Issue: Vol. 40(2) of PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review

The November 2017 issue of PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review (Volume 40, Issue 2) is now available. If you missed the May 2017 issue, you can catch up; it’s free to access!

The current issue features 10 original articles. In their editorial introduction, Heath Cabot and William Garriott write:

We ended our last introduction by restating our commitment to keeping PoLAR a place where anthropological work is brought to bear on the issues of the day. Of course, how one speaks to the present moment “anthropologically” remains hotly contested. But one distinguishing feature of our journal is its insistence on speaking to current issues and events from the particularities of specific times and places. This emphasis on place and time-centered contextualization gives anthropological work its specific texture, and it allows it to speak to current events with a unique voice and perspective.

In the United States, where we (the editors) live, political fights continue to rage over immigration, borders, government accountability, institutional responsiveness and efficacy, social media, surveillance technologies… the list goes on. There is no shortage of opinion on these topics. In shorter supply are scholarly takes that engage with complexity, turn to overlooked contexts for comparative perspective, and make room for the unexpected.

The articles in this issue provide such perspective. They address topics that are both timely and enduring. These include migration, borders, and the state (Yeh, Alpes); issues of identity in legal institutions (Lambert, Sapignoli, He, Li, and Feng); the unanticipated impact of policies designed to help the vulnerable (Ramsay, Vanderhurst); and the role technologies—electronic, bureaucratic—play in mediating relations between citizens and the state (Adunbi, Larson, Summers and Baiocchi). Five of the articles in this issue (Sapignoli, Vanderhurst, Adunbi, Ramsay, Alpes) center on the African continent and global or transnational links formed through displacement, legal frameworks, and extractive economies. They showcase the exciting new political and legal scholarship emerging from this rich and contested region. Articles centered on China, Mexico, the United States, and East Central Europe comprise the rest of the issue. They demonstrate the power of comparison to highlight the similarities and disjunctures that abide across discrete locales.

Read collectively, then, the articles in this issue give testament to the continued relevance of anthropological scholarship. They provide a fresh perspective on the concerns of the day while addressing the enduring questions of legal and political anthropology.

 

Conférence du Pr. Pierre Etienne Kenfack – Droits écrits et droits coutumiers en Afrique noire aujourd’hui

Cycle de conférences de l’Ecole de droit de la Sorbonne
Droits écrits et droits coutumiers en Afrique noire aujourd’hui

Résumé :

La question des rapports entre les droits écrits et les droits coutumiers en Afrique date de l’époque coloniale. A l’origine c’était des rapports de hiérarchie consistant à faire cohabiter les deux droits, mais en dénigrant les droits traditionnels avec pour objectif , à plus ou moins brève échéance leur remplacement par les droits écrits d’origine européenne.

Poursuivie après les indépendances avec la règle de la succession d’États et la multiplication des lois écrites, cet objectif s’est heurtée à une résistance discrète mais omniprésente des droits traditionnels, avec parfois des situations claires d’application des solutions de droit traditionnel au détriment des règles écrites.

Il est donc important, au-delà d’un bilan, d’interroger l’état actuel des rapports entre les droits écrits et les droits traditionnels dans les Etats d’Afrique noire et surtout d’en tirer des conséquences en terme de processus de production du droit ayant des chances de s’appliquer effectivement dans un espace juridique donné.

Mercredi 22 Novembre 2017
15 – 16 h
Salle 1
Centre Panthéon
12, place du Panthéon
75005 Paris

Conférencier : Pierre Etienne Kenfack , Université de Yaoundé II (Cameroun)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdteAW3YLSe62PGkEKRNZzJ6NAa1KWOH2p8o5rInlKijTXdXg/viewform