This dissertation identifies institutional positivism and historically grounded pluralism as interpretive trends in the Canadian case law on Indigenous-state relations, and explores tensions between these trends. These are tensions between practices of judicial interpretation, not between theories of interpretation or legal concepts. They are practices developed case- by-case, with interpretive trends emerging over time through series of cases addressing similar issues in related contexts. Institutional positivist approaches insist that judicial recognition of Indigenous legal orders and accommodation of Indigenous interests must take place within established constitutional forms founded on state sovereignty. Historically grounded pluralist approaches show greater willingness to balance principles of state sovereignty against principles of popular sovereignty and of Indigenous priority in Canadian territory. While the two approaches overlap significantly, their differences sometimes lead to contrasting legal conclusions on key issues of, e.g., treaty interpretation, the relationship between Indigenous legal orders and the state legal system, and the jurisdictional dimension of Aboriginal title. This dissertation examines these positivist-pluralist tensions in the context of the current period of ideological transition and rapidly evolving imaginaries of Indigenous-state relations. Chapters 1 and 2 explore the case law to highlight concrete ways in which this ideological transition finds doctrinal expression in both positivist and pluralist modes. Chapters 3 and 4 offer broader reflections on philosophical debates relating to legal positivism and the role of popular sovereignty in constitutional interpretation by Canadian courts. The final chapter then considers the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canadian law, with a focus on implementing legislation recently adopted by British Columbia and on two recent judgments that split the Supreme Court of Canada on the proper role of the Canadian judiciary in coordinating Canadian state law with non-state legal orders (Indigenous in one case and international in the other). This concluding chapter explains how the ongoing interplay of positivist and pluralist concerns will inevitably shape the reception of UNDRIP in Canadian law and the ongoing elaboration of Canadian Aboriginal law more generally. / Graduate / 2022-08-26

L'administration coloniale a pris de nombreuses formes au fil des siècles, et l'Indirect rule est l'une des plus représentatives de la colonisation britannique. A ce titre, il convient de s'intéresser aux causes et aux conséquences de ce système de gouvernement, ainsi qu'aux spécificités qui y sont liées en pratique. Cette analyse portera donc essentiellement sur sa mise en application au Nigeria, ainsi que sa diffusion dans l'empire colonial britannique d'Afrique. Afin d'approfondir cette étude, l'Indirect rule sera également abordé d'un point de vue plus théorique, notamment concernant l'évolution de sa perception par les historiens du droit. De même, sa spécificité sera questionnée, notamment en la comparant à d'autres systèmes de gouvernement coloniaux européens. / Colonial administration evolved a lot through centuries, and Indirect rule is one of the most representative of the British one. As such, it is interesting to look at the reasons and the issues of the particular system of government, as well as the particularities linked to Indirect rule in the facts. This analysis will be more specifically about how Indirect rule worked in Nigeria, as well as its diffusion through the British colonial empire in Africa. In order to complete the study, Indirect rule will also broached from a theoretical point of view, in particular regarding the evolution of how historians of law considered it. Moreover, its specificities will be observed, in particular by comparing indirect rule with other Europeans colonial governments.