This dissertation is concerned with the ways in which Māori legal traditions have changed in response to the process of negotiated settlement of historical claims against the state. The settlements agreed between Māori groups and the state provide significant opportunities and challenges for Māori communities and, inevitably, force those communities to confront questions relating to the application of their own legal traditions to these changed, and still changing, circumstances. This dissertation focuses specifically on Māori legal traditions and post-settlement governance entities. However, the intention is not to simply record changes to Māori legal traditions, but to offer some assessment as to whether these changes and adaptations support, or alternatively detract from, the two key goals of the settlement process - reconciliation and Māori self-determination. I argue that where the settlement process is compelling Māori legal traditions to develop in a way that is contrary to reconciliation and Māori self-determination, then the settlement process itself ought to be adjusted. This dissertation studies the nature of changes to Māori legal traditions in the context of the Treaty settlement process, using a framework that can be applied to Māori legal traditions in other contexts. There are many more stories of Māori legal traditions that remain to be told, including stories that drill into the detail of specific legal traditions and create pathways between an appropriate philosophical framework and the practical operation of vibrant Māori legal systems. Those stories will be vital if we in Aotearoa/New Zealand are to move towards reconciliation and Māori self-determination. The story that runs through this dissertation is one of a settlement process that undermines those objectives because of the pressures it places on Māori legal traditions. But it need not be this way. If parties to the Treaty settlement process take the objectives of self-determination and reconciliation seriously, and pay careful attention to changes to Māori legal traditions that take place in the context of that process, a different story can be told – a story in which Treaty settlements signify, not the end of a Treaty relationship, but a new beginning. / Graduate / 0398 / 0332 / 0326 / carwyn@uvic.ca

Conflict is an integral and necessary aspect of human societies. The challenge is not to prevent conflict or even to resolve it, but rather, to effectively manage it so that it does not paralyse people. Historically, Gitksan society managed conflict through their legal traditions and governance practices, and I argue that it is the undermining of this conflict management system that has generated the pervasive conflicts among the Gitksan people today. While it is not possible to attribute the current internal conflict experienced by the Gitksan to the major legal action of Delgamuukw (inclusive of the several decades of preparation, levels of litigation and court decisions, and political aftermath), it was, and arguably still is, a very powerful force and influence in the lives of the Gitksan people. The extensive present-day internal conflicts in Gitksan communities must be reflexively appreciated within the complex of power relationships between the Gitksan people and Canada, and between Gitksan law and Canadian law. In Canada and beyond, Delgamuukw and the Gitksan were (and still are) part of a much larger continuum of political, social, and economic change as well as local economic shifts involving natural resources. The Gitksan people’s legal traditions enabled them to effectively manage themselves in a complex, decentralized, non-state society. Gitksan oral histories and other records such as the songs, crests, kinship roles, and traditions contain implicit and explicit law both as content and in their architecture as cognitive units that enable the sorting of information and dynamic intellectual processes of legal reasoning by analogy and metaphor. Gitksan legal traditions include intentional and deliberative collective processes to change law over time, transform implicit law into explicit law, and create legal precedent and a formal memory archive. These legal traditions are integral to the Gitksan people’s ongoing political perseverance and are the basis for the enduring connections to their territories. Moreover, the legal traditions are part of the dynamic political and social change processes that enable the Gitksan to be Gitksan in the past as well as in the present – complete with all the contested, pragmatic, entangled, contemporary forms of Gitksan politics. A deeper, critical, and more complex appreciation of Gitksan legal traditions is necessary if they are to be practically useful to the Gitksan people in today’s world for application to today’s issues. I have taken the position that Gitksan conflict management processes must be grounded within a substantive and critical articulation of Gitksan laws and legal practices, legal order, and legal theory. I propose a Gitksan legal theory that derives from a substantive treatment of the legal order, laws, and law cases. I draw resources from both western and indigenous legal theorists to explore, describe, and analyse Gitksan legal traditions. My proposed Gitksan legal theory comprises a broad overview, general principles, normative principles, and general working principles. While my work is based on a number of Gitksan law cases, my theoretical approach may be extrapolated to other non-state, decentralized peoples.

This dissertation is concerned with the ways in which Māori legal traditions have changed in response to the process of negotiated settlement of historical claims against the state. The settlements agreed between Māori groups and the state provide significant opportunities and challenges for Māori communities and, inevitably, force those communities to confront questions relating to the application of their own legal traditions to these changed, and still changing, circumstances. This dissertation focuses specifically on Māori legal traditions and post-settlement governance entities. However, the intention is not to simply record changes to Māori legal traditions, but to offer some assessment as to whether these changes and adaptations support, or alternatively detract from, the two key goals of the settlement process - reconciliation and Māori self-determination. I argue that where the settlement process is compelling Māori legal traditions to develop in a way that is contrary to reconciliation and Māori self-determination, then the settlement process itself ought to be adjusted. This dissertation studies the nature of changes to Māori legal traditions in the context of the Treaty settlement process, using a framework that can be applied to Māori legal traditions in other contexts. There are many more stories of Māori legal traditions that remain to be told, including stories that drill into the detail of specific legal traditions and create pathways between an appropriate philosophical framework and the practical operation of vibrant Māori legal systems. Those stories will be vital if we in Aotearoa/New Zealand are to move towards reconciliation and Māori self-determination. The story that runs through this dissertation is one of a settlement process that undermines those objectives because of the pressures it places on Māori legal traditions. But it need not be this way. If parties to the Treaty settlement process take the objectives of self-determination and reconciliation seriously, and pay careful attention to changes to Māori legal traditions that take place in the context of that process, a different story can be told – a story in which Treaty settlements signify, not the end of a Treaty relationship, but a new beginning. / Graduate / 0398 / 0332 / 0326 / carwyn@uvic.ca

Ending colonialism requires the revitalization of not only indigenous systems of law, but also the indigenous legalities of which they form part. This means that Canada’s unique form of liberal constitutionalism cannot serve as the constitutional framework within which indigenous law is revitalized. Rather, we shall have to advert to the fact that indigenous law was and is generated by unique indigenous legal processes and institutions, which find their authorization in unique indigenous constitutional orders, which are in turn legitimated by indigenous peoples’ unique and varied creation stories. Through the gifts of diverse Anishinaabe writers and orators, and through work with my circle of elders, with aadizookaanan, in community, and on the land, I present one view of Anishinaabe legality. I give special emphasis to its earth-centric ‘rooted’ form of constitutionalism, which is characterized by mutual aid and its correlate structure, kinship. In the second half, I examine the problem of colonial violence in contemporary indigenous-settler relationships. I identify two principles necessary for indigenous-settler reconciliation and I consider how commonly proposed models of indigenous-settler relationship fare against them. I conclude that one vision of treaty, treaty mutualism—which is a form of rooted constitutionalism—is non-violent to indigenous peoples, settler peoples and to the earth. Finally, I consider counter-arguments on themes of fundamentalism, power, and misreading. / Graduate