2001/03/01 by David C. Hawkes, David Hawkes
Social Sciences · #Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
paper · doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00304
crossref issued 2001/03/01 · crossref published 2001/03/01 · crossref published-print 2001/03/01 · openalex publication_date 2001/03/01 · crossref published-online 2002/12/16 · crossref created 2003/03/12 · crossref deposited 2023/11/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
The right of self‐determination of indigenous peoples within states often branches in two directions: (1) a drive for more autonomy for indigenous nations and (2) a demand for greater participation in the decision‐making institutions of the state. These two branches of indigenous self‐determination appear to fit very closely with the twin pillars of federalism ‐ self‐rule and shared‐rule. There are many aspects of federalism that can provide a context for accommodating the self‐determination of indigenous peoples within federal states. The drive for greater autonomy, or self‐rule, can be accommodated through a public form of government where indigenous people are the demographic majority in a region, or through the exercise of the aboriginal right of self‐government and the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements. The demand for greater participation in the decision‐making institutions of the state, or shared‐rule, can be met by guaranteed representation for indigenous peoples in the legislatures of federations, in the creation of Aboriginal parliaments, in the creation of state dispute resolution mechanisms to address the needs of indigenous peoples, in the development of treaty‐making and treaty‐renewal processes, and through indigenous participation in the intergovern‐mentalrelations of federal states.