The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The supersession of Indigenous understandings of justice and morals
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often use the dispossession of Indigenous lands as an example of the sort of injustice in the past that can be superseded in certain circumstances.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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Part of the problem is that settler conceptions of property rights ' overwhelmingly [disregard] [ … ] Indigenous understanding[s] of land-people relations, law and normativity ' (Christie, 2022: 427).”
From Reorienting Territorial Rights: The Case for Grounded Normative Theory (2024) · cites this paper as Christie, 2022
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Atleo R., 2005, Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth worldview
- Bastien B., 2004, Blackfoot ways of knowing: The worldview of the Siksikaitsitapi
- 10.3138/9781442625501 · DOI
- 1982, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.)
- 1997, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.C.R. 1010
- 1984, Guerin v. The Queen, 2 S.C.R. 335
- Hendrix B., 2018, Conference: “The Temporal Orientation of Justice: The Supersession Thesis, Historical Injustice, and Changed Circumstances
- Ignace M., 2017, Secwépemc people, land, and laws, 10.1515/9780773552036 · DOI
- Irlbacher-Fox S, 2013, Philosophy and Aboriginal Rights, 373
- Locke J, 1689, Two Treatises of Government
- 10.1017/S0841820900005105 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 · DOI
- Simpson L, 2011, Dancing on our turtle’s back
- 1888, St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.)
- 2014, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2 S.C.R. 256
- 10.1086/293468 · DOI
- 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
Reorienting Territorial Rights: The Case for Grounded Normative Theory
Jourdeuil, K. (2024) · Canadian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0008423924000416 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Christie, G.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Christie, Gordon
- Venue
- Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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