Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Leaving Nobody Behind: policy integration policy reform -- Chapter 3: Indigenous Peoples: policy, culture, and the goals -- Chapter 4: Freedom and Culture: beyond egalitarian justice -- Chapter 5: The Just State -- Chapter 6: Participation and Presence -- Chapter 7: National Values, the Goals, and the Right to Self-determination -- Chapter 8: Self-Determination, Participation, and Leadership -- Chapter 9: Quality Education -- Chapter 10: Economic Growth -- Chapter 11: Data Sovereignty – what is measured and why? -- Chapter 12: Conclusion.

Chapter 1. Introduction -- Chapter 2. Recognition -- Chapter 3. Recognising Sovereignty and Citizenship -- Chapter 4.Makarrata, Truth and Treaties as Social Contracts -- Chapter 5. The Treaty of Waitangi -- Chapter 6. Recognition, Pluralism and Participation -- Chapter 7. Beyond consultation: participation as influence -- Chapter 8. Power and Presence: indigenising public decision-making. Chapter 9. Conclusion.

In 2007, 144 UN member states voted to adopt a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US were the only members to vote against it. Each eventually changed its position. This book explains why and examines what the Declaration could mean for sovereignty, citizenship and democracy in liberal societies such as these. It takes Canadian Chief Justice Lamer's remark that 'we are all here to stay' to mean that indigenous peoples are 'here to stay' as indigenous. The book examines indigenous and state critiques of the Declaration but argues that, ultimately, it is an instrument of significant transformative potential showing how state sovereignty need not be a power that is exercised over and above indigenous peoples. Nor is it reasonably a power that displaces indigenous nations' authority over their own affairs. The Declaration shows how and why, and this book argues that in doing so, it supports more inclusive ways of thinking about how citizenship and democracy may work better. The book draws on the Declaration to imagine what non-colonial political relationships could look like in liberal societies.

In 2007, 144 UN member states voted to adopt a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US were the only members to vote against it. Each eventually changed its position. This book explains why and examines what the Declaration could mean for sovereignty, citizenship and democracy in liberal societies such as these. It takes Canadian Chief Justice Lamer's remark that 'we are all here to stay' to mean that indigenous peoples are 'here to stay' as indigenous. The book examines indigenous and state critiques of the Declaration but argues that, ultimately, it is an instrument of significant transformative potential showing how state sovereignty need not be a power that is exercised over and above indigenous peoples. Nor is it reasonably a power that displaces indigenous nations' authority over their own affairs. The Declaration shows how and why, and this book argues that in doing so, it supports more inclusive ways of thinking about how citizenship and democracy may work better. The book draws on the Declaration to imagine what non-colonial political relationships could look like in liberal societies.

During the 1980s and 1990s biculturalism was the ascendant political philosophy for managing the relationship between the New Zealand Crown and the indigenous Maori population. Biculturalism understood Maori politics as a partnership between Maori and the state, grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi, the agreement signed in 1840 from which British government was established. Biculturalism was presented as morally superior to multiculturalism which was understood as setting aside Maori Treaty rights and rights of prior occupancy in favour of less substantive rights available to Maori as one of many ethnic minorities. However, a deeper reading of multicultural political theory provides an instructive critique of biculturalism's inherent limits from the perspective of the Maori right to self‐determination. It shows why biculturalism's influence waned. It also shows why Matike Mai o Aotearoa, a blueprint for constitutional transformation commissioned by tribal leaders is unlikely to succeed as a contemporary attempt to reassert biculturalism's influence. Multicultural theory is not a panacea for the right to self‐determination, but it does not restrict the development of a broader Maori‐centred differentiated liberal citizenship in the ways that biculturalism precludes.

Contemporary Fijian politics is shaped by a colonial legacy of extraordinary complexity and political tension. Since gaining independence from Great Britain in 1970, Fiji's history has been distinguished by incoherent and inconsistent accounts of political power. These concern the political rights belonging to indigenous peoples as first occupants vis‐à‐vis the claims to political recognition by the descendants of Indian indentured labourers. The relative power between the indigenous aristocracy and commoners is a further complicating variable. Following three coups (1987 and 2006) and a putsch (2000), indigenous paramount authority has been positioned against various forms of democracy and military oversight of the political process. However, none of these political arrangements has enhanced indigenous self‐determination. This article argues that indigenous self‐determination is more likely to be realised through a form of differentiated liberal citizenship consistent with the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This reasonably requires the extension of the Declaration's provisions to indigenous Fijians, who, as a recent majority indigenous population, are constrained by colonial legacy in a similar manner to the minority indigenous populations for whose benefit the Declaration was primarily adopted.