帮助我帮助你:为什么国会试图用自由贸易协定涵盖印第安部落承包商所犯的侵权行为伤害了政府和部落

Joseph W. Gross
{"title":"帮助我帮助你:为什么国会试图用自由贸易协定涵盖印第安部落承包商所犯的侵权行为伤害了政府和部落","authors":"Joseph W. Gross","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2286298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the Nixon Administration, the U.S. government has attempted to promote tribal self-determination among Native Americans. Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the tribes can enter into agreements with the federal government to take over services previously provided to the tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). By entering into these contracts, the tribes have been able to administer a wide variety of services, including construction and law enforcement, which bring income and employment to Indian country. These contracts do not always run smoothly, however, and sometimes people get injured. Under a series of amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act, when tribal contractors commit torts, the federal government steps in and defends the tribal contractors under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as if they were employees of the government. The government pays out any settlements or judgments from the Judgment Fund. This scenario is a complete departure from the traditional FTCA rule whereby contractors are only treated as government employees in exceedingly limited circumstances.In hastily extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors, Congress contravened FTCA jurisprudence in theory and in practice. Congress intended to help the tribes avoid having to buy costly insurance by directly assuming liability under the FTCA. While perhaps well-intentioned, the result is a system of perverse incentives and a string of inconsistent decisions. Courts struggle to apply the FTCA's waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity to the tribes, which remain separate sovereigns that retain some of their own sovereign immunity. The arrangement also creates problems in determining whether tribal contractors are within the scope of their employment and undertaking discretionary functions. Furthermore, the statutory scheme creates the potential for tribal law to govern the United States' tort liability and may have inadvertently created a loophole for the intentional torts of tribal law enforcement officers. The end result of this untenable situation is that savvy tribes recognize the unpredictability of the FTCA protection and purchase private insurance anyway, sometimes with federal contract support funds. This is the exact result Congress hoped to avoid.Congress should end the experiment of extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors and replace it with subsidized private insurance. This new arrangement would simplify the process for potential claimants and keep the government from having to pay the duplicative costs of insurance and judgments.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Help Me Help You: Why Congress's Attempt To Cover Torts Committed by Indian Tribal Contractors with the FTCA Hurts the Government and the Tribes\",\"authors\":\"Joseph W. Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2286298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the Nixon Administration, the U.S. government has attempted to promote tribal self-determination among Native Americans. Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the tribes can enter into agreements with the federal government to take over services previously provided to the tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). By entering into these contracts, the tribes have been able to administer a wide variety of services, including construction and law enforcement, which bring income and employment to Indian country. These contracts do not always run smoothly, however, and sometimes people get injured. Under a series of amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act, when tribal contractors commit torts, the federal government steps in and defends the tribal contractors under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as if they were employees of the government. The government pays out any settlements or judgments from the Judgment Fund. This scenario is a complete departure from the traditional FTCA rule whereby contractors are only treated as government employees in exceedingly limited circumstances.In hastily extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors, Congress contravened FTCA jurisprudence in theory and in practice. Congress intended to help the tribes avoid having to buy costly insurance by directly assuming liability under the FTCA. While perhaps well-intentioned, the result is a system of perverse incentives and a string of inconsistent decisions. Courts struggle to apply the FTCA's waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity to the tribes, which remain separate sovereigns that retain some of their own sovereign immunity. The arrangement also creates problems in determining whether tribal contractors are within the scope of their employment and undertaking discretionary functions. Furthermore, the statutory scheme creates the potential for tribal law to govern the United States' tort liability and may have inadvertently created a loophole for the intentional torts of tribal law enforcement officers. The end result of this untenable situation is that savvy tribes recognize the unpredictability of the FTCA protection and purchase private insurance anyway, sometimes with federal contract support funds. This is the exact result Congress hoped to avoid.Congress should end the experiment of extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors and replace it with subsidized private insurance. This new arrangement would simplify the process for potential claimants and keep the government from having to pay the duplicative costs of insurance and judgments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American University law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American University law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2286298\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2286298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自尼克松政府以来,美国政府一直试图促进美洲原住民的部落自决。根据《印第安人自决权法案》,部落可以与联邦政府签订协议,接管印第安事务局(BIA)以前向部落提供的服务。通过签订这些合同,部落能够管理各种各样的服务,包括建筑和执法,为印度带来收入和就业机会。然而,这些合同并不总是顺利进行,有时会有人受伤。根据《印第安人自决权法案》的一系列修正案,当部落承包商实施侵权行为时,联邦政府会介入,并根据《联邦侵权索赔法》(FTCA)对部落承包商进行辩护,就像他们是政府雇员一样。政府从判决基金中支付任何和解或判决。这种情况完全背离了传统的FTCA规则,即承包商只在极其有限的情况下被视为政府雇员。国会草率地将《自由贸易协定》扩展到部落承包商,在理论上和实践上都违反了《自由贸易协定》的法理。国会打算通过直接承担《自由贸易协定》的责任来帮助部落避免购买昂贵的保险。尽管初衷可能是好的,但其结果是产生了一套不合理的激励机制和一系列不一致的决策。法院很难将FTCA对联邦政府主权豁免的放弃适用于部落,部落仍然是独立的主权,保留了一些自己的主权豁免。这种安排也造成了一些问题,难以确定部落承包商是否在他们的雇用范围内并行使自由裁量的职能。此外,法定方案为部落法管理美国的侵权责任创造了可能,并可能无意中为部落执法人员的故意侵权创造了漏洞。这种站不住脚的情况的最终结果是,精明的部落认识到FTCA保护的不可预测性,无论如何都会购买私人保险,有时使用联邦合同支持基金。这正是国会希望避免的结果。国会应该终止将FTCA扩大到部落承包商的试验,代之以补贴的私人保险。这项新安排将简化潜在索赔人的程序,并使政府不必支付保险和判决的重复费用。
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
Help Me Help You: Why Congress's Attempt To Cover Torts Committed by Indian Tribal Contractors with the FTCA Hurts the Government and the Tribes
Since the Nixon Administration, the U.S. government has attempted to promote tribal self-determination among Native Americans. Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the tribes can enter into agreements with the federal government to take over services previously provided to the tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). By entering into these contracts, the tribes have been able to administer a wide variety of services, including construction and law enforcement, which bring income and employment to Indian country. These contracts do not always run smoothly, however, and sometimes people get injured. Under a series of amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act, when tribal contractors commit torts, the federal government steps in and defends the tribal contractors under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as if they were employees of the government. The government pays out any settlements or judgments from the Judgment Fund. This scenario is a complete departure from the traditional FTCA rule whereby contractors are only treated as government employees in exceedingly limited circumstances.In hastily extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors, Congress contravened FTCA jurisprudence in theory and in practice. Congress intended to help the tribes avoid having to buy costly insurance by directly assuming liability under the FTCA. While perhaps well-intentioned, the result is a system of perverse incentives and a string of inconsistent decisions. Courts struggle to apply the FTCA's waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity to the tribes, which remain separate sovereigns that retain some of their own sovereign immunity. The arrangement also creates problems in determining whether tribal contractors are within the scope of their employment and undertaking discretionary functions. Furthermore, the statutory scheme creates the potential for tribal law to govern the United States' tort liability and may have inadvertently created a loophole for the intentional torts of tribal law enforcement officers. The end result of this untenable situation is that savvy tribes recognize the unpredictability of the FTCA protection and purchase private insurance anyway, sometimes with federal contract support funds. This is the exact result Congress hoped to avoid.Congress should end the experiment of extending the FTCA to cover tribal contractors and replace it with subsidized private insurance. This new arrangement would simplify the process for potential claimants and keep the government from having to pay the duplicative costs of insurance and judgments.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CHAPTER 2. Research Universities: Overextended, Underfocused; Overstressed, Underfunded The American University National Treasure or Endangered Species? CHAPTER 7. Prospect for the Social Sciences in the Land Grant University The American University: Dilemmas and Directions Frontmatter
×
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