Bryant's Academic Work Reveals Fundamental Divide on Issue of Self Government

Saskatchewan Law Review 56 Sask. L. Rev. (1992) >> ABORIGINAL SELF-

DETERMINATION: THE STATUS OF

CANADIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

AT INTERNATIONAL LAW


MICHAEL J. BRYANT*




Thus, using Canadian aboriginal groups as an example, it would be unlikely that such groups would be recognized as self-determining without Canada's support.7

The liberal use of the term "self-determination" in aboriginal rights commentary may be more harmful than helpful in advancing indigenous claims. The concept of self-determination seems to mingle in the literature with other important legal concepts, leading to confusion over the fundamental distinctions among self-determination, self-government, sovereignty and existing aboriginal rights.9 Merging these concepts into a generalized notion of aboriginal self- determination is misleading and will arguably frustrate the aspirations of native claimants.

Moreover, the over-broad interpretation of self-determination risks a greater evil: it retards the proper development and expansion of the concept within the law since indulgent descriptions of self-determination place all progressive approaches in disrepute.

Regardless of the academic merits of providing sweeping powers to indigenous peoples,4' such a conferral of power simply will not occur as long as the structure of the United Nations remains intact.a2 It is unrealistic to expect a State to give up control over land, resources and jurisdiction.43


If self determination is the goal of certain Canadian aboriginal peoples, the first step towards success lies in conceding the Crown's sovereignty over Canadian territory, and restricting self-determination powers at international law to exclude the right to secede.