Archives par mot-clé : Droit des peuples autochtones

Colloque : Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ? (24-25 mai, Aix-Marseille Université)

Colloque

Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ?

Du vendredi 24 mai 2019 au samedi 25 mai 2019


Présentation

Un colloque sur un sujet très actuel mais qui n’attire malheureusement pas assez l’attention. Cet évènement a pour but de sensibiliser à la cause de la protection et de la reconnaissance pleines et entières des peuples autochtones et de leur patrimoine.

Nous mettons un point d’honneur sur la recherche d’intervenants de qualité et concernés par ces problématiques : ONG en contact direct avec les peuples, représentants d’autochtones, juristes, chercheurs spécialistes, etc.

Des temps d’échange seront organisés entre le public et les intervenants.

Se tiendra également une exposition de grands photographes professionnels dans le Hall principal de la Faculté de droit d’Aix-en-Provence, du lundi 20 mai au samedi 25 mai 2019.

Programme

Vendredi 24 mai 2019

13h30 : Accueil des participants et allocution de bienvenue

14h00 : Conférence introductive

Peuples autochtones et environnement : Écocide, biopiraterie, appropriation des expressions culturelles – Exemple du peuple Kanak en Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Subama Mapou, porte-parole IKAPALA et Comité Rhéébù Nùù

Reconnaissance et statut juridique des peuples autochtones 
Mr. Daniel Arboleda, doctorant AMU

15h30 : Pause

Table ronde n°1 – Droit à la terre

15h45 : Le droit de propriété des peuples autochtones 
Pr. Aurélie Laurent, université du Mans

Les menaces aux territoires – l’affaire Montagne d’Or 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

17h20 : Exposition et buffet

Discussions informelles entre les différents intervenants et le public autour d’un buffet et d’œuvres photographiques professionnelles

19h30 : Clôture

Samedi 25 mai 2019

9h00 : Accueil des participants / petit-déjeuner

Table ronde n°2 – l’importance des cultures autochtones

09h15 : Opportunités et contraintes du patrimoine culturel immatériel pour les cultures autochtones 
Pr. Laurent  Sébastien Fournier, Université AMU

La notion de “génocide culturel” – Le cas des residential schools au Canada 
Mme. Lorraine Dumont, doctorante AMU

10h45 : Pause

Table ronde n°3 – Les actions menées en faveur des peuples autochtones

11h00 : Les actions pour la préservation de la Culture – ACCB Bordeaux et les arrivants de Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Rachelle Hnawia, représentante Association ACCB

Protection des expressions culturelles, symboles et artisanat traditionnel 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

12h30 : Clôture et restauration

Accès gratuit, tout public

Faculté de droit et science politique
Amphithéâtre Favoreu
3 Avenue Robert Schuman
13100 Aix-en-Provence

Source : https://univ-droit.fr/actualites-de-la-recherche/manifestations/31603-les-peuples-autochtones-quels-droits-quelle-protection

bOOK REVIEW : Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

Book Review: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction by Jim Reynolds

Posted: 14 May 2019 06:13 AM PDTIn Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical IntroductionJim Reynolds offers an excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, discussing 163 cases stretching from 1823 up until the present day and covering topics including sovereignty, Aboriginal title and treaties. Reynolds draws on his wealth of experience to provide a compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada, writes Sarah PikeAboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

‘Thoughtful and well-written (though brief!) analysis…’. This was part of the feedback I received in law school in 1993 on my Aboriginal Law paper about ‘Aboriginal title’, an Indigenous interest in land recognised by the common law. It occurs to me now, after practising Aboriginal law for much of the last 25 years and recently reading Jim Reynolds’s excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction, that my haste may not have been the only contributor to my brevity. In my defence – I now realise – there simply was a dearth of judicial decisions on my topic. Aboriginal Peoples makes clear from its very first page – a helpful one-page list of leading cases in Canadian Aboriginal law, stretching from 1823 (an American case) to 2016 – that there has been an explosion of Canadian judicial decisions concerning Aboriginal peoples and interests since the 1990s.
Of the 36 cases Reynolds lists on this opening page – his book discusses 163 overall – only ten had been decided when I was in law school. With respect to Aboriginal title, the subject matter of my paper, there were only two. The first was St. Catherine’s Milling (1888), decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England sitting in appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (as it did then) but not involving any Indigenous parties. The second was Calder (1973), the first case brought by Indigenous plaintiffs for a declaration of Aboriginal title. The Supreme Court of Canada decided the case in 1973 but not on the merits, as the majority of the court held that the plaintiffs had not obtained the Crown’s consent to sue it – a fiat – as was required at the time. Reynolds discusses these two cases in several places in his book, most notably in a section entitled ‘History of the Law of Aboriginal Title’ (94-102).
Reynolds obtained his undergraduate law degree in 1967 and his PhD in law in 1970, both from the London School of Economics; he then taught at LSE for several years and qualified as a barrister in England, before becoming a barrister and solicitor in British Columbia in 1980. Over the last 40 years, he has had a front-row (and occasionally a driver’s) seat to many of the developments in Canadian Aboriginal law. Reynolds has now bestowed on us the benefit of his experience, teaching ability, concise writing and learned synthesis of how we got to where we are today in Canada with respect to the subject matters of his title: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law.
Aboriginal Peoples, as the publisher blurb explains, is aimed at ‘students taking both introductory and specialist courses in Aboriginal law, Indigenous studies, or the social sciences; lawyers with an interest in Aboriginal law; and journalists, government officials, business people, and other members of the public who want a better understanding of where the law stands today and where it should go in the future’. As a lawyer with several decades behind me, I learned something on nearly every page. Most importantly, I appreciated Reynolds’s explanation of the context in which the law has been made through judges’ decisions and also of the relationships between the history and the present and between various sub-fields of Aboriginal law. But I also used this book as my course textbook when I recently taught a law school Aboriginal Law course. My students, I believe, found Aboriginal Peoples a straightforward and easily-comprehensible explanation of the law that enabled them to get up to speed quickly and to begin to analyse current legal issues.
Each of the book’s eight chapters averages just under 30 pages and is well-written in plain English. Reynolds assumes the reader’s intelligence, but not that she is coming to the book with years of experience in Aboriginal law: indeed, his first chapter is entitled ‘What is Aboriginal Law?’. Reynolds includes an important second chapter on the ‘Historical Background’ to Aboriginal law in Canada, a topic indispensable to a proper understanding of Aboriginal law. Reynolds then adds a third foundational chapter, ‘Sovereignty and Aboriginal-Crown Relations’, again providing the reader with this essential overarching perspective.
The heart of Aboriginal Peoples – at least, perhaps, from a law student’s or lawyer’s perspective – is its middle chapters about ‘Aboriginal Rights and Title’, ‘Treaties’ and ‘Consultation, Accommodation, and Consent’. Here, Reynolds discusses the historical development of the caselaw on each broad legal topic, bringing the reader right up to the most recently-decided cases (as of mid-2018). He synthesises both judicial decisions and scholarship, enabling the reader to see the fabric that the law has woven, rather than only the threads making up that fabric.
Reynolds’s penultimate chapter addresses two vast topics:  ‘Indigenous and International Law’.  Indigenous law, in particular, is a rapidly-developing field as Indigenous peoples recover and develop their own laws and legal systems, many of which settler societies and legal systems around the world almost eradicated. Those who are interested in this field – in which there has been a bounty of Canadian legal academic writing in the last decade or more – might be disappointed that Reynolds does not provide more in this chapter. Some might also argue with his assertion that Indigenous laws ‘do not form part of the Canadian law except to the extent that they have been incorporated into Canadian common law’ (175). Yet Reynolds was relying on a judge’s decision in drawing that conclusion, and those who wish to read more about this topic – or any other that Reynolds so ably canvasses – can investigate further by following the plethora of footnotes accompanying each chapter.
In his final chapter, ‘A Just Society?’, Reynolds – appropriately – provides more questions than answers about the future of Aboriginal law in Canada, including ‘probably the most important question for non-Aboriginal people in areas such as British Columbia’ – Reynolds’s home and mine – ‘where treaties have not been signed and Aboriginal title still exists’. This question is: ‘what does Aboriginal title mean for private property rights?’ (200). Indeed, this aspect of Aboriginal title is now a topic for law school papers, and Reynolds’s book is an excellent place to start in understanding this still-unresolved conflict between two legal interests that both appear to ‘confer exclusive use and possession’ of land (201). Aboriginal Peoplesbrings the reader up-to-date with respect to the current caselaw on Aboriginal title, explaining the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Delgamuukw (1997), then Marshall; Bernard (2005) and, finally, Tsilhqot’in (2014) (see especially Chapter Four), thereby helping him to more fully understand the intricacies of the remaining questions.
Reynolds concludes Aboriginal Peoples with a section entitled ‘Evaluation of Existing Law’, writing in the first person, as he does on occasion through the book. In my experience, one of the difficulties in analysing Aboriginal law – whether a court decision or academic commentary – is perceiving the writer’s perspective, and I appreciated knowing when Reynolds was attempting to objectively explain the law and when he was commenting on it. His approach, I believe, contributes to the reader’s comprehension of the extent to which individual perspective affects Aboriginal law in Canada; indeed, this matter of ‘who is doing the writing?’ is itself one of the final topics Reynolds addresses. He provides his opinion that some of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Aboriginal law favour ‘liberal discourses of rights’, which include ‘an approach to equality that ignores, among other things, disparities in resources, political and social power, and social inequality generally’ (212-13). If a mark of a great book is that it makes one want to read further in the topic, then Reynolds has done a fine job. As is evident from this brief example, the questions and issues that Reynolds raises in his final pages are ones that not only law students and lawyers must consider, but also all citizens of Canada and many other settler nations as well.
That Reynolds provides us with his perspective occasionally in Aboriginal Peoples gives us a chance to reflect on how lucky we are as readers to be able to receive this, in addition to his compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada. Were I to go back in my time machine to 1993 to discuss my paper with my law professor, I would keep Aboriginal Peoples and The Law: A Critical Introduction in my back pocket to help me better understand where we were in 1993, where we would be in 2018 and where we might very well end up in the years to come.

Sarah Pike is a lawyer in Vancouver, where she has worked since being called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1995. She has worked in a big firm, a small firm and government.  She has also been a graduate student in law and taught at a law school. Sarah is now a freelance lawyer practising Aboriginal and constitutional law through her own law firm, SPIKE Law.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 

REview : Dossier “droit et anthropologie. ARCHEOLOGIE d’un savoir et enjeux contemporains”, CLIO@Themis n°15

Frédéric Audren et Laetitia Guerlain

Introduction. Un nouvel agenda pour l’anthropologie du droit ?

En s’emparant de la thématique des rapports entre droit et anthropologie, ce numéro de Clio@Themis s’inscrit, à l’instar de numéros précédents, dans la perspective d’une histoire sociale et intellectuelle du droit. C’est à partir des rapports difficiles entre droit et anthropologie que ce volume poursuit plus spécifiquement l’enquête sur le couple droit et (autres) sciences sociales, entendu ici, non seulement comme objet, mais également comme méthode. Que les relations entre droit et anthropologie (…)

>>Lire l’article

Louis Assier-Andrieu

Difficulté et nécessité de l’anthropologie du droit

Abstract : This article aims to deepen the understanding of the Western legal tradition with the instruments of cultural anthropology. Recalling the properties of legal reason, it opens the way for a new relationship between law and anthropology. It also warns against the temptation to extend the domination of this Western reason over other societies and cultures.

>>Lire l’article

Géraldine Cazals

Les juristes humanistes de la Renaissance, des anthropologues en puissance ? Réflexions autour de quelques études (principalement françaises) de cas

Abstract : Questioning the role played by jurists – mainly French – in the history of anthropology during the Renaissance, this article highlights the way in which humanist jurists found themselves, through their philological and historical work, at the heart of an immense collection of ethnographic knowledge. It shows how the extend of the progress in cosmography and legal comparatism allowed them to develop reflections of an anthropological nature. In doing so, it is necessary not only to focus on the contribution of humanist jurists to anthropology, but also to include the development of anthropology in the Renaissance in an epistémè belonging the legal field.

>>Lire l’article

Kaius Tuori

Law and Rationality : A Historiographical Survey of the Understanding of Motivation and Human Agency in Early Legal Anthropology

Abstract : The purpose of this article is to examine how nineteenth-century legal science conceptualized and dealt with otherness in law, with examples of legal phenomena such as ordeal and blood revenge to illustrate how the concept of legal rationality evolved in the early legal anthropology and how it still influences our understanding of legal otherness. It provides new insights on how, in the treatment of specific legal institutions, the ideas of reason and rationality could change as scholars used European medieval history to aid in the understanding of indigenous cultures.

>>Lire l’article

Silvia Falconieri

Droit colonial et anthropologie. Expertises ethniques, enquêtes et études raciales dans l’outre-mer français (Fin du XIXesiècle-1946)

Abstract : In the context of 19th– and 20th-century French colonialism, anthropological knowledge plays a crucial role when it comes to legally categorising colonised populations. What are the forms, modalities and aims at stake when the law encountered that other knowledge ? What is the anthropology of colonial legal experts ? How are the knowledge, tools and techniques of anthropology mobilised by colonial jurists, and what are the consequences ? In the light of these questions, this article tackles the issues at stake when colonial law met physical and racial anthropology in the shaping of the statuses of subject and citizen in the French Empire. The analysis of the particular case of the non-recognised Métis being granted French citizenship shows that specialists in colonial law made extensive use of contemporaneous anthropological studies. Not only did they appropriate the contents of anthropological research, but they also learned a method which was to be mobilized in the judicial proceeding. In the 1920s, « ethnic expertise » and investigation became the pillars of a new legal proceeding that was, in large part, the result of the rapprochement of colonial law and racial anthropology.

>>Lire l’article

Alain Chenu

René Maunier, Album graphique de la statistique criminelle de l’Égypte (1890-1918). Un inédit centenaire présenté par Alain Chenu

Abstract : As the head of statistics at the Egyptian ministery of Justice, René Maunieur drew up a « graphic album of penal statistics in Egypt » (1918), describing the trends in crime and offences registered by the « indigeneous jusrisdictions » from 1890 to 1918. This set of tables, curves, maps, and histograms follows an « explanatory note » where the author defined his guidelines and reviewed the literature in the field of criminal statistics in Egypt. In his presentation, Alain Chenu invites to an upgrading of Maunier’s involvement in the use of statistical methods, and tries to answer a question : why has Maunier, later on, left behind statistics ?

>>Lire l’article

Laetitia Guerlain

Entre science juridique et savoirs anthropologiques : évolutionnisme et histoire comparée du droit chez Émile Jobbé-Duval (1851-1931)

Abstract : This paper sketches the intellectual portrait of Roman law professor Émile Jobbé-Duval. It tries to analyse the way the author combines legal history with the anthropological and evolutionnist literature of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. This article therefore reassesses the contribution of the French jurists to the making of legal anthropology. Their works have indeed been deeply influenced by their anthropological readings, which they have mobilised by using intertextuality.

>>Lire l’article

Albane Geslin

Une brève historiographie de « pluralisme juridique » : quand les usages d’une notion en font un instrument de luttes politiques

Abstract : My basic argument is that “legal pluralism” (concept and words) is, in anthropological discourses, not only a descriptive notion, but above all a political struggles tool. Those struggles take place on three fields : scientific, academic, and ethical. All of them contest State and its law, its role in social-lige and how jurists legitimize this role.

>>Lire l’article

Irène Bellier

La reconnaissance des peuples autochtones comme sujets du droit international. Enjeux contemporains de l’anthropologie politique en dialogue avec le droit

Abstract : This article explains how the relational political category [Indigenous Peoples] raises new debates in anthropology and law. By returning to linguistic issues – as the statement of this international category varies according to the dominant languages and its uses fall into various political contexts – it specifies the stakes of the differentiation between the terms « people » and « population », the [s] making a difference in English (the working language of the United Nations) between people (individuals) and peoples (collective). The treatment of indigenous issues induces a series of epistemological transformations stimulating an analytical reflection on the institutions and forms of government of the collective. New areas of dialogue between anthropology and law emerge from this perspective, particularly on the meaning of law, on land issues that must be reconsidered in the light of the pressure of multinational companies (extractive or agro-industrial) on indigenous territories and on systemic classifications.

>> Lire l’article

Fernanda Pirie

Legalism : a turn to history in the anthropology of law

Abstract : Notorious definitional debates have characterized the anthropology of law, and scholars have not reached consensus over how “law” is to be distinguished from other social phenomena. This article suggests that light can be shed upon this issue by combining the insights of anthropologists and historians. Careful comparison among empirical examples highlights the importance of texts and the legal form. Case studies from Tibet are used to illustrate these points and draw attention to the phenomenon of legalism, that is, the use of generalizing rules and abstract categories to describe and organise the world. This provides a basis for exploring the nature and significance of law, both in the modern world and societies of the past.

>>Lire l’article

Frédéric Audren | Jacques Flach

DOCUMENT : L’ethnologie juridique au Collège de France : le cours de Jacques Flach sur les Institutions primitives (1892-1904)

Abstract : This paper presents Jacques Flach’s Collège de France course in primitive law, which he taught from 1892 until 1904. It insists on the specificity of his historical and comparative approach. Ever attentive to studying institutions in their context, Flach proposes an innovative interpretation of feudalism, seeks to write a global history of law and endeavours to stress the institutional alterity of primitive societies. Flach is therefore among the first scholars to teach social and legal anthropology in France.

>>Lire l’article

TRADUCTION

Annelise Riles (auteur)

Le droit est-il porteur d’espoir ?

Abstract : This essay asks what legal studies can contribute to the now vigorous debates in economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, literary studies and anthropology about the nature and sources of hope in personal and social life. What does the law contribute to hope  ? Is there anything hopeful about law ? Rather than focus on the ends of law (social justice, economic efficiency, etc.) this essay focuses instead on the means (or techniques of the law). Through a critical engagement with the work of Hans Vaihinger, Morris Cohen and Pierre Schlag on legal fictions and legal technicalities, the essay argues that what is “hopeful” about law is its “As If” quality.

Laetitia Guerlain (présentatrice) | Prune Decoux et David Foulks (traducteurs)  

>>Lire l’article

PhD : Benoit Éthier

Orocowewin notcimik itatcihowin : ontologie politique et contemporanéité des responsabilités et des droits territoriaux chez les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok (Haute-Mauricie, Québec) dans le contexte des négociations territoriales globales

Benoit  


Université Laval, Québec

:
:
Pour consulter la thèse cliquez ici
Résumé:

Cette recherche doctorale s’inscrit dans les champs des études autochtones, de l’anthropologie juridique et de l’ontologie politique. À partir d’une analyse du processus d’élaboration du code de pratiques chez les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok, cette étude s’intéresse à l’articulation et à la traduction de pratiques, de processus et de principes normatifs nehirowisiwok dans un contexte de négociations territoriales et de dialogue avec les institutions étatiques. Cette recherche s’intéresse au phénomène du pluralisme juridique – à la description empirique et à l’analyse des processus de négociations, de traductions et de reformulations qui se produisent, dans un rapport souvent asymétrique, entre, par exemple, les ordres normatifs autochtones et le droit étatique. À l’instar d’autres Premières Nations, les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok sont engagés, depuis les dernières décennies, dans des revendications d’autodétermination visant à faire reconnaître à la fois leurs droits et leurs propres pratiques politiques et de gestion territoriale. Contrairement toutefois à d’autres Premières Nations, comme les Cris (Eeyouch / Eenouch) de la Baie James ou les Nisgaa’ de la Côte-Ouest canadienne, les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok n’ont, à ce jour, signé aucun traité, historique ou moderne, avec les gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. Les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok sont pleinement conscients du risque de négocier et d’utiliser les systèmes et instances politiques et juridiques de l’État pour faire reconnaître leur droit à l’autodétermination. Ils sont aussi pleinement conscients qu’ils sont confrontés à la présence inévitable de conflits ontologiques et épistémologiques. Toutefois, et en dépit des nombreux obstacles, ils demeurent mobilisés et engagés dans ces négociations inévitables avec les institutions étatiques. Dans cette mobilisation, les Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok maintiennent l’espoir de faire reconnaître leurs propres visions du politique, manières d’êtres-au-monde et aspirations. Pour reprendre le terme de Blaser (2004), ces démarches articulent et présentent des « projets de vie » autochtones fondés sur des rapports particuliers aux territoires et aux non-humains, sur des mémoires, des attentes et des désirs. Ces « projets de vie » se mobilisent concrètement dans les pratiques quotidiennes, les relations aux territoires familiaux, les activités de chasse et dans les mobilisations des Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok autour de la reconnaissance de leurs droits.

Abstract:

This doctoral research encompasses the fields of Indigenous studies, legal anthropology and political ontology. Through an analysis of the elaboration of the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok code of practices, this study examines the articulation and translation of Nehirowisiwok normative practices, processes and principles in a context of territorial negotiations and dialogue with state institutions. This research focuses on the phenomenon of legal pluralism – the empirical description and analysis of the processes of negotiations, translations and reformulations that often take place, in asymmetrical relationship, notably between indigenous normative orders and state law. Like other First Nations, the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok have, over the past few decades, been involved in self-determination claims for the recognition of their rights, as well as their political and territorial management practices. Unlike other First Nations, however, such as the James Bay Cree (Eeyouch / Eenouch) or the Nisgaa’ of the Canadian West Coast, the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok have not so far signed any treaty, historical or modern, with the governments of Quebec and Canada. The Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok are fully aware of the risk involved in such negotiations and of using the political and legal systems of the State in order to have their right to self-determination recognized. They are also conscious of the unavoidable ontological and epistemological conflicts they face. However, in spite of these obstacles, they remain mobilized and engaged in these inevitable negotiations with state institutions. In this mobilization, the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok remain hopeful that their own political visions, as well as their ways of being-in-the-world and aspirations will be recognized. These efforts articulate and exhibit what Blaser (2004) defines as indigenous “life projects”, based on specific relations to the land and non-human agencies, on memory, expectations and desires. These “life projects” are mobilized concretely in daily practices, relationships to family territories, hunting activities and through the various mobilizations enacted by the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok around the recognition of their rights.

Emptied Lands A Legal Geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev

Alexandre Kedar, Ahmad Amara, and Oren Yiftachel

Stanford University Press

Forthcoming : February 2018

 

Cover of Emptied Lands by Alexandre Kedar, Ahmad Amara, and Oren Yiftachel

Since its establishment, the Jewish State has devoted major efforts to secure control over the land of Israel. One example is the protracted legal and territorial strife between the Israeli state and its indigenous Bedouin citizens over traditional tribal land in the Negev in southern Israel.

Emptied Lands investigates this multifaceted land dispute, placing it in historical, legal, geographical, and comparative perspective. The authors provide the first legal geographic analysis of the “dead Negev doctrine,” which has been used by Israel to dispossess Bedouin inhabitants and Judaize the southern half of the country. Through crafty use of Ottoman and British laws, particularly the concept of “dead land,” Israel has constructed its own version of terra nullius. Yet, the indigenous property system still functions, creating an ongoing resistance to the Jewish state. This study examines several key land claims and rulings and alternative routes for justice promoted by indigenous communities and civil society movements.

Link : http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24714

About the author :

Alexandre Kedar is Senior Lecturer at Haifa University School of Law and a co-editor of The Expanding Spaces of Law (Stanford, 2014).

Oren Yiftachel is Professor of Political Geography at Ben-Gurion University. He is the author of numerous books, including Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine (2006).

Ahmad Amara is a Palestinian human rights lawyer. In 2005, he co-founded a human rights organization, Karama (Arabic for “Dignity”), in Nazareth.

 

 

Vacarme : Souveraineté aborigène

Barbara Glowczewski

Souveraineté aborigène

Vacarme 81, Cahier, automne 2017

Vacarme 81

Les peuples autochtones sont engagés depuis de longues années dans des luttes pour la reconnaissance de leurs territoires. En Nouvelle-Zélande, mais aussi en Australie dont il est question ici, ils parviennent à reconfigurer notamment les rapports à la terre. Leurs moyens sont multiples mais c’est au prix de mobilisations insistantes que petit à petit, ils imposent leur légitimité première et redéfinissent des équilibres hérités des colonisations.

Pour consulter l’article : Vacarme