Cobell vs Salazar 2009 : À la reconquête de la souveraineté tribale sur les terres indiennes ?
This article tackles the issue of tribal sovereignty on Indian territories in relation to the Cobell v. Salazar settlement (Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F. 3d 808, (D.C. Cir.), 2009). As a result of the superimposition of multiple laws and their successive, and sometimes inconsistent, implementation, the...
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Lingua: | Français |
| Pubblicazione: |
2016
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Riassunto: | This article tackles the issue of tribal sovereignty on Indian territories in relation to the Cobell v. Salazar settlement (Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F. 3d 808, (D.C. Cir.), 2009). As a result of the superimposition of multiple laws and their successive, and sometimes inconsistent, implementation, the legal status of Native American lands in the US is highly intricate and testifies to the complexity of articulating indigenous specificity and the different levels of federalism. Cobell v. Salazar, which puts an end to a class-action lawsuit of fourteen years, recognizes that the federal government has mismanaged Indian trust lands and provides for the allocation of a two-million-dollar fund for tribes to repurchase the tiny tracts of individually owned land deriving from the Dawes Act of 1887. What degree of autonomy has the settlement generated? Is it yet another example of negotiated and partial autonomy? |
|---|