Many Indian leaders have recognized that the Supreme Court of Canada

changed direction very significantly on issues of treaty and aboriginal

rights. As a result, Indian attitudes towards the courts and litigation

as a strategy are changing. This paper attempts to describe the changes

that have been underway, with particular reference to judicial

United States law has used the doctrine of "discovery" to justify the

takeover of Indian people and territory. In the same way Australian law

has used the concept of "terra nullius," the legal myth that Australia

had no previous owners. Today it is easy to see that both doctrines are

racist. Both are inconsistent with modern international law. The United

Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations rejects both doctrines.

Canadian law has never used either "discovery" or "terra nullius." Our

legal tradition has been so self-confident, so arrogant, that it felt

need to have any legal theory justifying British colomalism.

It is now generally accepted that the initial relations be

Some topics in this essay:
Court Canada, United Nations, Indian Act, Constitution Act, Indigenous Populations, Supreme Court, Nova Scotia, Indian-Colonial Relations, North America, Alfonso Martinez, supreme court, supreme court canada, court canada, united nations, international law, section 35, canadian law, indian rights, treaty rights, aboriginal treaty rights, aboriginal treaty, indians rights, indians legal rights, european colonial powers, world war ii,