Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:50:52.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decolonizing Authority: The Conflict on Wet'suwet’en Territory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2021

Avigail Eisenberg Open the ORCID record for Avigail Eisenberg [Opens in a new window]
Avigail Eisenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, PO Box 1700, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: avigaile@uvic.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the leading features of colonialism is the imposition on a given territory and people a framework for what constitutes authority that renders pre-existing governing practices and legal orders unrecognizable as features of legitimate law and governance. Understood in this way, colonialism renders Indigenous law and governing practices invisible. As a result, decolonization requires changing how authority is apprehended and not only how it is distributed. This article compares two frameworks of authority in relation to the conflict on Wet'suwet’en territory: liberal postcolonial statism and relational pluralism. It shows how each framework provides a distinct lens through which to understand the pertinent features of political authority but argues that relational pluralism presents a better account of how to reconceive political authority in the context of real-world conflict.

Résumé

Résumé

L'une des principales caractéristiques du colonialisme est d'imposer à un territoire et à un peuple donnés un cadre d'autorité qui rend les pratiques de gouvernance et les ordres juridiques préexistants méconnaissables en tant que caractéristiques du droit et de la gouvernance légitimes. En ce sens, le colonialisme a rendu invisibles le droit et les pratiques de gouvernance autochtones. Par conséquent, la décolonisation exige de changer la façon dont l'autorité est appréhendée et pas seulement la façon dont elle est distribuée. L'article compare deux cadres d'autorité au conflit sur le territoire Wet'suwet'en : l'étatisme libéral post-colonial et le pluralisme relationnel. Il montre comment chaque cadre fournit une lentille distincte permettant de comprendre les caractéristiques pertinentes de l'autorité politique, mais soutient que le pluralisme relationnel présente un meilleur compte rendu de la manière de reconcevoir l'autorité politique dans le contexte d'un conflit réel.

Keywords

authoritypolitical and legal pluralismIndigenous politicsdecolonizationautoritépluralisme politique et juridiquepolitique autochtonedécolonisation
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 40 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Canadian Political Science Association (l’Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allard-Tremblay, Yann. 2018. “The Modern and the Political Pluralist Perspectives on Political Authorities.” Review of Politics 80 (4): 675–700.10.1017/S0034670518000517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anaya, S. James, Sergio Puig, . 2017. “Mitigating State Sovereignty: The Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples.” University of Toronto Law Journal 67 (4): 435–64.10.3138/utlj.67.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrera, Jorge. 2020. “First Nations Voices in Support of Coastal GasLink Project Silenced by Fear, Says LNG Canada Official.” CBC News, January 23. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/coastal-gaslink-pipeline-lng-canada-1.5436837.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster.” American Indian Law Review 22 (1): 37–64.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. 2016. Freedom and Indigenous Constitutionalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Canada. 2020. Memorandum of Understanding between Canada, British Columbia and Wet'suwet’en as Agreed on February 29, 2020. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1589478905863/1589478945624.Google Scholar
Carl J., Friedrich, ed. 1958. NOMOS I: Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cover, Robert. 1983. “Nomos and Narrative.” Harvard Law Review 97 (4): 4–65.Google Scholar
Coyne, Andrew. 2020. “The Rule of Law Is about More than Rules, or Law.” Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 22.Google Scholar
Griffiths, John. 1986. “What Is Legal Pluralism?” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 18 (24): 1–55.Google Scholar
Griffiths, John. 2015. “Legal Pluralism.” In vol. 13 of the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. Wright, James. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A, . 1976. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberly. 2019. “Decolonizing Global Ethics: Thinking with the Pluriverse.” Ethics and International Affairs 33 (2): 115–25.10.1017/S0892679419000169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivison, Duncan. 2002. Postcolonial Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ivison, Duncan. 2020. Can Liberal States Accommodate Indigenous Peoples? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Krisch, Nico. 2010. Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228317.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1999. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jacob. 2017. Rationalism, Pluralism and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacCharles, Tonda. 2020. "Here's What Government Can – and Can't – Do to End the Wet'suwet'en Standoff." Toronto Star, February 13.Google Scholar
Macklem, Patrick. 2015. The Sovereignty of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCrossan, Michael and Ladner, Kiera L.. 2016. “Eliminating Indigenous Jurisdictions: Federalism, the Supreme Court of Canada, and Territorial Rationalities of Power.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 411–31.10.1017/S0008423916000822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKerracher, Kelty. 2021. “Relational Legal Pluralism and Indigenous Legal Orders in Canada.” Unpublished paper. https://www.mcgill.ca/law/files/law/baxter-2nd-2021-keltymckerracher_relational-legal-pluralism.pdf.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 1988. “Legal Pluralism.” Law & Society Review 22 (5): 869–96.10.2307/3053638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, Ralf. 2017. “Law and Recognition: Towards a Relational Concept of Law.” In In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence, ed. Roughan, Nicole and Halpin, Andrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Margaret. 2019. “The Taking of Territory and the Wrongs of Colonialism.” Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (1): 87–106.10.1111/jopp.12156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñiz-Fraticelli, Victor. 2014. The Structure of Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673889.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternak, Shiri. 2017. Grounded Authority. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W., eds. 1987. NOMOS XXIX: Authority Revisited. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, Susannah. 2020. “Opinion: The Importance of Giving an Equal Voice and Opportunity to Be Heard.” LNG Canada News, January 20. https://www.lngcanada.ca/news/opinion-give-first-nations-who-support-cgl-an-equal-voice-and-an-equal-opportunity-to-be-heard/.Google Scholar
Rajagopal, Balakrishnon. 2003. International Law from Below. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1985. “Authority, Law and Morality.” The Monist 68 (3): 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughan, Nicole. 2013. Authorities: Conflicts, Cooperation and Transnational Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet. 2001. Multicultural Jurisdictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanovich, Olivia. 2020. “Wet'suwet’en Agreement Outlines Steps for Transferring Control of Territory to Traditional Leadership.” CBC News, May 6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stefanovich-wetsuweten-mou-1.5556511.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia [2014] 2 S.C.R. 257.Google Scholar
Thunberg, Greta (@GretaThunberg). 2020. Twitter, February 8. https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1226137808865243136?lang=en.Google Scholar
Turner, Jerome. 2020. “Manufacturing Wet'suwet’en Consent.” Briarpatch, September 10. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/manufacturing-wetsuweten-consent?fbclid=IwAR3ru8vosNKHoHtrZLBmA2NqTBxVvmYDqyAJj21K-EEjIm4C1fhEKGbDNig.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2013. “What's Wrong with Colonialism?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 41 (2): 158–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar