Cited by 8Indigenous Peoples' Rights and LawPolitical Philosophy and EthicsIndigenous Cultures and History

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The supersession of Indigenous understandings of justice and morals

Christie, Gordon·2022·Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy

Abstract

Arguments about the supersession of historic injustice often use the dispossession of Indigenous lands as an example of the sort of injustice in the past that can be superseded in certain circumstances. This article aims not to directly challenge the content of such arguments but to place them into a different context, wherein they are seen playing a role in ongoing efforts to remove Indigenous understandings of law, justice, and morals from discussions about state-Indigenous histories and interactions. The normative narrowness of these arguments is explored alongside developments within Canadian law that purport to respond to the historic denial of substantive Indigenous interests in lands by colonial and Canadian authorities. While the analysis predominantly takes a bird’s-eye view of the interaction of varied normative systems, the conclusion advances a normatively charged argument, as I speculate about why courts – and academics writing about the passage of time – seem intent on developing arguments that displace Indigenous understandings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13698230.2022.2039539

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Atleo R., 2005, Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth worldview
  2. Bastien B., 2004, Blackfoot ways of knowing: The worldview of the Siksikaitsitapi
  3. 10.3138/9781442625501 · DOI
  4. 1982, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.)
  5. 1997, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010
  6. 1984, Guerin v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 335
  7. Hendrix B., 2018, Conference: “The Temporal Orientation of Justice: The Supersession Thesis, Historical Injustice, and Changed Circumstances
  8. Ignace M., 2017, Secwépemc people, land, and laws, 10.1515/9780773552036 · DOI
  9. Irlbacher-Fox S, 2013, Philosophy and Aboriginal Rights, 373
  10. Locke J, 1689, Two Treatises of Government
  11. 10.1017/S0841820900005105 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 · DOI
  13. Simpson L, 2011, Dancing on our turtle’s back
  14. 1888, St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.)
  15. 2014, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2 S.C.R. 256
  16. 10.1086/293468 · DOI
  17. Waldron, J. (2013). Supersession and sovereignty.NYU School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 13-33(Julius Stone Address, August 3, 2006). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2205708

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Christie, G.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Christie, Gordon
Venue
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Published
2022-04-01
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
427-442
ISSN
  • 1369-8230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8772
OpenAlex
W4220816745
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
10.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
Keywords
historical injustice, indigenous land rights, colonialism, Canadian law, Indigenous-settler relations, Indigenous self-determination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review