神圣义务:跨文化正义与条约权利话语

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Ucla Law Review Pub Date : 2000-08-01 DOI:10.4324/9781315252391-11
Rebecca A. Tsosie
{"title":"神圣义务:跨文化正义与条约权利话语","authors":"Rebecca A. Tsosie","doi":"10.4324/9781315252391-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2000-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca A. Tsosie\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315252391-11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252391-11\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ucla Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252391-11","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

今天,美国原住民和墨西哥裔美国人援引上个世纪的条约来支持他们对跨文化正义的要求。在这种条约权利的论述下,印第安人条约和瓜达卢佩·伊达尔戈条约都体现了美国的道德义务,即履行其尊重通过征服而非自愿纳入的不同种族群体的土地和文化权利的承诺。然而,这两种说法之间也存在重要差异。特别是,关于美洲土著人民条约权利的论述突出了这些群体的政治主权,并与当代自决和群体主权的概念保持着强有力的联系。Tsosie教授认为,实现跨文化正义的当代机制必须符合特定群体间关系的独特历史和政治品质,因此,用于实现美洲印第安群体跨文化正义的结构很可能与用于墨西哥裔美国人的结构不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights
Today, Native Americans and Mexican American point to the treaties of the last century in support of their claims for intercultural justice. Under this discourse of treaty rights, both the Indian treaties and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo embody the moral obligation of the United States to honor its promises to respect the land and the cultural rights of the distinct ethnic groups that were involuntarily incorporated through conquest. However, there are also important differences between the group claims. In particular, the discourse of treaty rights for Native American people highlights the political sovereignty of those groups and maintains a powerful connection to contemporary concepts of self-determination and group sovereignty. Professor Tsosie argues that contemporary mechanisms for achieving intercultural justice must correspond to the unique historical and political qualities of the particular intergroup relations, and thus, the structures used to achieve intercultural justice for American Indian groups may well be different than those used for Mexican Americans.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ucla Law Review
Ucla Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren welcomed the UCLA Law Review''s founding volume by stating that, “[t]o a judge, whose decisions provide grist for the law review mill, the review may be both a severe critique and a helpful guide.” The UCLA Law Review seeks to publish the highest quality legal scholarship written by professors, aspiring academics, and students. In doing so, we strive to provide an environment in which UCLA Law Review students may grow as legal writers and thinkers. Founded in December 1953, the UCLA Law Review publishes six times per year by students of the UCLA School of Law and the Regents of the University of California. We also publish material solely for online consumption and dialogue in Discourse, and we produce podcasts in Dialectic.
期刊最新文献
How Constitutional Norms Break Down Invoking Common Law Defenses in Immigration Cases Slap leather! Legal culture, wild Bill Hickok, and the gunslinger myth The Rugged Individual's Guide to the Fourth Amendment: How the Court's Idealized Citizen Shapes, Influences, and Excludes the Exercise of Constitutional Rights Community in Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1