{"title":"Rights of the Indigenous Peoples to Self-Government: A Comparative Analysis between New Zealand and Canada","authors":"Hind Sebar, Rohaida Nordin","doi":"10.20884/1.jdh.2021.21.1.2878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Canada and New Zealand are the western liberal democracies settled by a predominantly English-speaking majority. Their legal and constitutional system depends on English common law. Both Canada and New Zealand have a high percentage of indigenous peoples irrespective of the 4% difference in Canada and 15% in New Zealand. Both states rank high in global comparisons of human development. There exist many differences in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples in both Canada and New Zealand. These distinctions in the application of the self- government right in local and regional level greatly impacts how indigenous peoples put self- government into practice and brings forth significant questions about which version of these applications best serves the interests of indigenous peoples. This is a comparative study that expounds the differences between constitutions of both countries together with the distinctions in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples. By using the legal combative method to compare constitutions of Canada and New Zealand and their policies regarding rights of self-government of indigenous peoples, this study concludes that with respect to clear constitutional and legislative recognition of the right of self -government Canada is more advanced. Additionally, this study points out significant institutional work differences between indigenous peoples’ self-government rights in both countries. Keywords- Canada; Indigenous peoples; indigenous rights; Native; New Zealand; Self-government.","PeriodicalId":280058,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2021.21.1.2878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Canada and New Zealand are the western liberal democracies settled by a predominantly English-speaking majority. Their legal and constitutional system depends on English common law. Both Canada and New Zealand have a high percentage of indigenous peoples irrespective of the 4% difference in Canada and 15% in New Zealand. Both states rank high in global comparisons of human development. There exist many differences in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples in both Canada and New Zealand. These distinctions in the application of the self- government right in local and regional level greatly impacts how indigenous peoples put self- government into practice and brings forth significant questions about which version of these applications best serves the interests of indigenous peoples. This is a comparative study that expounds the differences between constitutions of both countries together with the distinctions in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples. By using the legal combative method to compare constitutions of Canada and New Zealand and their policies regarding rights of self-government of indigenous peoples, this study concludes that with respect to clear constitutional and legislative recognition of the right of self -government Canada is more advanced. Additionally, this study points out significant institutional work differences between indigenous peoples’ self-government rights in both countries. Keywords- Canada; Indigenous peoples; indigenous rights; Native; New Zealand; Self-government.