The Doctrine of Discovery and Colonialism

The Doctrine of Discovery:

 The International Law of Colonialism

Conference Room Paper

11^th Session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

7-18 May 2012

Presented by:   Professor Robert Miller

On January 8, 1455, Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Romanus Pontifex to King Alfonso of Portugal and ordered him in regards Africa:

“to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his . . . use and profit . . . [and to] possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors . . . .”[1]

            The international law that authorized and regulated six hundred years of European colonization of much of the world is known today as the Doctrine of Discovery. Beginning with the Crusades to the Holy Lands in 1096-1271, European countries and the Christian church began developing law to justify their alleged rights to dominate and colonize non-Christian nations.[2] Specifically, Portugal and Spain contributed to the development of this law in the early-1400s in their disputes over islands off the Iberian peninsula and the coast of Africa.[3] The Church got involved and issued papal bulls that claimed to grant Portugal sovereignty and jurisdiction over Indigenous Peoples, and ownership of the islands and the lands in Africa that Portugal claimed to have “discovered.”[4] Additional papal bulls in 1493 purported to grant Spain and Portugal legal rights to colonize and exploit the entire world.[5] Thereafter, Spain and Portugal applied the Doctrine of Discovery in Africa and the Americas,[6] and later England, France, Holland, Russia, and Spain used this international law to claim rights in North America.[7] Spain, Portugal, England, Holland, and France also used the Doctrine to claim rights over Indigenous Peoples and their lands and assets in Asia, the Pacific, and Oceania.[8] The colonial, settler societies that resulted from the European colonization of much of the world continue to apply the Doctrine of Discovery against Indigenous Nations and Peoples today.[9]  

In 1885, thirteen European countries signed a treaty in which they agreed to partition enormous areas of Africa based on several of the elements of the Doctrine.[10] The seven European countries that primarily colonized Africa justified their colonial systems and the theft of lands, assets, and human rights on the elements of the international law of Discovery.[11] For example, European countries signed countless treaties with African nations that, while recognizing African sovereignty and governments to some extent, actually limited African self-determination and self-governance and exploited the peoples, lands, and resources.[12] European countries enacted numerous laws and created colonial administrations to govern and exploit Africa, and European and colonial judicial systems had to resolve many issues about the ownership of Indigenous rights, lands, and resources in Africa.[13]

Scandinavian countries also applied the elements of Discovery against the Sami peoples to attempt to limit Sami rights of self-determination and ownership of their traditional lands and property rights. Preliminary research establishes that court cases from Sweden,[14] and Norway,[15] and historical materials show that the governments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Russia have infringed on Sami human rights and land and property rights.[16] The Sami continue to struggle to assert their rights today.[17]

            Clearly, all Indigenous Peoples need to understand how the international law of colonialism was developed; how it was used to denigrate them as human beings and then was used to steal their lands, assets, and rights; and how it has impacted them from the onset of colonization right up to 2012.

A study of the Doctrine of Discovery and its application around the world is facilitated by defining the constituent elements that make up the Doctrine. These elements are well defined in the leading court case on Discovery; the U.S. Supreme Court case of Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823).[18] The Johnson case has been very influential in defining Discovery and in deciding issues regarding colonization and the rights of Indigenous Nations. The case has been cited hundreds of times by courts in Australia,[19] Canada,[20] New Zealand,[21] the United States,[22] and by the English Privy Council in cases about colonization in Africa and Canada.[23]

These elements are reflected, to varying degrees, in the laws, treaties, court cases, policies, and histories of all the European colonial countries and in the settler societies they established around the world. The ten elements that constitute the Doctrine are very useful in analyzing and comparing how settler societies used this international law against Indigenous Nations and Peoples.[24] 

1. First discovery. The first European country that discovered lands unknown to other Europeans claimed property and sovereign rights over the lands and Indigenous Peoples. A first discovery, however, was usually considered to create only an incomplete title to those lands.

2. Actual occupancy and possession. To turn a “first discovery” into a full title recognized by other Europeans, a European country had to actually occupy and possess the lands it claimed to have discovered. Occupancy was usually proved by building forts or settlements. Physical possession had to be accomplished within a reasonable amount of time after a “first discovery” to create a complete title.

3. Preemption/European title. European countries that claimed a “first discovery” also purported to have acquired the power of preemption, that is, the sole right to buy the lands of Indigenous Peoples. This is a valuable property right analogous to an exclusive option to purchase land. The European government that claimed the preemption right could prevent or preempt any other European government or individual from buying land from native peoples. Most settler societies still claim this property right over Indigenous Nations and Peoples today.

4. Indigenous/Native title. After a “first discovery,” European legal systems claimed that Indigenous Peoples and Nations had automatically lost the full ownership of their lands. Europeans claimed that Indigenous Nations only retained the rights to occupy and use their lands. These rights could last indefinitely, however, if the Indigenous Peoples never consented to sell land to the European country that claimed the preemption right. But if Indigenous Nations did choose to sell, they were expected to sell only to the European government that purported to hold the preemption right.

5. Limited Indigenous sovereign and commercial rights. After a “first discovery,” Europeans claimed that Indigenous Nations and Peoples lost various aspects of their inherent sovereignty and their rights to international trade and diplomacy. Europeans claimed that Indigenous Nations could only interact with the European government that “discovered” them.

6. Contiguity. Europeans claimed a significant amount of land contiguous to and surrounding their actual discoveries and colonial settlements. Contiguity provided, for example, that the discovery of the mouth of a river allegedly granted the European country a claim over all the lands drained by that river.

7. Terra nullius. This phrase means a land or earth that is null, void, or empty. Under Discovery, if lands were not occupied by any person or nation, or even if they were occupied but were not being used in a manner that European legal systems approved, then the lands were purported to be “empty” and available for Discovery claims. Europeans often considered lands that were actually owned, occupied, and being used by Indigenous Nations to be “vacant” and “empty” and available to claim.

8. Christianity. Religion was a very significant aspect of the Doctrine. Christians claimed that non-Christian peoples did not have the same rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination as Christians.[25] Furthermore, Europeans claimed they had a right and duty to convert non-Christians.

9. Civilization. The European “model” of “civilization” included the idea that Europeans were superior to Indigenous Peoples and their civilizations. European countries claimed that the Christian God had directed them to bring “civilization” to Indigenous Peoples and to exercise paternalism and guardianship powers over them.

10. Conquest. Europeans claimed they could acquire, through military victories, the absolute title and ownership of the lands of Indigenous Nations. By analogy, “conquest” was also used as a term of art to describe the property and sovereignty rights Europeans purported to acquire automatically over Indigenous Nations and Peoples just by claiming to make a “first discovery.”

            Various forms and permutations of the above elements are present in the histories and modern-day laws and policies of all colonizing countries and the colonial, settler societies they established. These elements were used, and are still being used, to try to justify claims to limit the sovereignty, property, and human rights of Indigenous Nations and Peoples. We support the continuing efforts of Indigenous Peoples to oppose the very existence of the Doctrine of Discovery and to repeal its pernicious effects.

Suggested actions to begin eliminating the Doctrine of Discovery

We ask the Permanent Forum to adopt these initial steps to begin the process of repudiating and reversing the six hundred year old Doctrine of Discovery.

1. To adopt the Haudenosaunee, American Indian Law Alliance, and the Indigenous Law Institute conference room paper request for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to convene an Expert Group Meeting to create an international study of the Doctrine of Discovery and its effects on Indigenous Peoples, and to submit that study, along with recommendations, to the Permanent Forum in 2014.

2. To advocate that all states of the world adopt the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as binding national law.

3. To advocate that all states review their laws, regulations, and policies impacting Indigenous Nations and Peoples and to repeal laws, regulations, and policies which reflect the ethnocentric, feudal, and religious prejudices of the Doctrine of Discovery. Furthermore, states should undertake these reviews in full consultation with Indigenous Nations and Peoples and with their free, prior, and informed consent.

4. To call on all states to educate their citizens in school curricula and by other means about the true and complete history of colonization and the application of the international law Doctrine of Discovery.

5. To call on all churches to join with Indigenous Peoples in repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and any role churches may have played in creating the Doctrine and in applying it against Indigenous Nations and Peoples. We recognize that several churches and church organizations have already done so: the Episcopal Church in 2009, the Anglican Church of Canada in 2010, and the World Council of Churches in 2012. We ask other churches to follow their lead.

World Water One

---

[1] European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, at 23 (Frances G. Davenport ed, 1917).

[2] Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500-c. 1800 (1995); Robert A. Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990).

[3] See, e.g., Robert J. Miller & Micheline D’Angelis, Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery, 37 Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 1 (2011); Robert J. Miller, Lisa Lesage & Sebastian Lopez Escarcena, The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile, 89 Neb. L. Rev. 819 (2011).

[4] See, e.g., Williams, supra note 2, at 72 (bull of 1436 regarding the Canary Islands); European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (bull of 1455 regarding the west coast of Africa); Church and State Through the Centuries 146-53 (Sidney Z. Ehler & John B. Morrall trans. & eds, 1967).

[5] European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (translating four bulls from 1493).

[6] See, e.g., Brazil, supra note 2, at 25-60; Chile, supra note 2, at 850-82.

[7] See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt & Tracey Lindberg, Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies 26-170 (2010); Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny 17-23, 25-33, 134-35 (2006).

[8] See, e.g., Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at 171-246; Blake A. Watson, The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 34 Seattle U. L. Rev. 507 (2011); Robert J. Miller & Jacinta Ruru, An Indigenous Lens into Comparative Law: The Doctrine of Discovery in the United States and New Zealand, 111 West Vir. L. Rev. 849 (2009).

[9] See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 847 (2012); Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at 36-88, 93-167, 177-98, 208-39; Brazil, supra note 3, at 25-60; Chile, supra note 3, at 850-82; Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005).

[10] See, e.g., General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa (1885) (at http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eracolonialism/l/bl-BerlinAct1885.htm); S.E. Crowe, The Berlin West African Conference 1884-1885, at 3, 95-191 (1942).

[11] See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, 1885-1939 xvii-48 (Toyin Falola ed., 2002); M.E. Chamberlain, The Scramble for Africa 28-83 (2d ed. 1999); 6 The Cambridge History of Africa 1870-1905, at 26-729 (Roland Oliver & G.N. Sanderson eds, 1985); VII U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, General History of Africa: Africa under Colonial Domination 1880-1935 (A. Adu Boahen ed, 1985); Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960 (Peter Duignan & L.H. Gann eds, 1969-1975) (5 volumes); see also Robert J. Miller, The International Law Doctrine of Discovery and the European Colonization of Africa (2012 (work in progress).

[12] See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 5-6, 8-9, 29, 33; 6 The Cambridge History of Africa, supra note 11, at 127, 442, 449, 453, 724-27. 

[13] See, e.g., The Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), Int'l Ct Justice 4 (1975); Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 16-20. 

[14] Cf. North Frostviken Sami Village v. State, S.Ct. Decision No. DT 2, Case No. 324/76 (1981) (Supreme Court of Sweden).

[15] Cf. Landowners and right-holders in Manndalen, et al v. The Norwegian State, Serial No. 5B/2001, No. 340/1999 (2001) (Supreme Court of Norway); Sirum et al v. Essand Reindeer Pasturing District, Seiral No. 4B/2001 (2001) (Norway); Riast/Hylling Sami v. Kjell Bendixvold et al, Frostating Lagmannsrett LF-1995-00034 A, Supreme Court HR-1997-00061 A, No. 96/1996 (1997) (Norway).

[16] See, e.g., Lehtola Veli-Pekka, The Sami siida and the Nordic states from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 1900s, in Conflict and Cooperation in the North 183-94 (Kristina Karppi & Johan Eriksson, eds, 2000); Einar Niemi, History of Minorities: The Sami and the Kvens, in Making a Historical Culture: Historiography in Norway 325-46 (William H. Hubbard et al, eds, 1995); The Sami National Minority in Sweden 7-140 (Birgitta Jahreskog, ed, 1982).

[17] See, e.g., Eva Josefsen, Norwegian Legislation and Administration - Sami Land Rights, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2007); Elisabeth Einarsbol, Some legal considerations concerning Saami rights in saltwater, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2006); Henry Minde, Assimilation of the Sami – Implementation and Consequences, Galdu Cala (No. 3, 2005).

[18] Johnson v. McIntosh is a very important case regarding the Doctrine of Discovery and Indigenous affairs as is demonstrated by the reams of books and articles written about it.  See, e.g., Michael C. Blumm, Why Aboriginal Title is a Fee Simple Absolute, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 975 (2012); Lindsay G. Robertson, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their Lands (2005); Eric Kades, The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1065 (2000).

[19] A computer search reveals that ten Australia cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Western Australia v. Ward, [2002] 213 CLR 1, 76 ALJR 1098; Mabo v Queensland (No 2), (1992) 175 CLR 1, 107 ALR 1.

[20] A computer search reveals that up to forty-four Canadian cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 1 S.C.R. 1075 (Supreme Court of Canada); Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. British Columbia, [2011] 55 C.E.L.R. (3d) 165, 15 B.C.L.R. (5th) 322 (British Columbia Supreme Court).  

[21] Several New Zealand cases have also cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa, [2003] 2 NZLR 643; Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, [1877] 3 NZ Jur (NS) 72; R. v. Symonds, [1847] NZPCC 387.

[22] Johnson v M’Intosh has been cited hundreds of times by federal and state courts in the United States. See, e.g., City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005); Attorney’s Process & Invest. Services v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 609 F.3d 927 (8^th Cir. 2010).

[23] Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); In re Southern Rhodesia, A.C. 211 (1918) (Privy Council); Canada v. Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637 (Privy Council); St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas. 46 (Privy Council).

[24] Native America, supra note 7, at 3-5.

[25] See Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (2008).

La Doctrina de Descubrimiento y Colonialismo

La Doctrina de Descubrimiento:

 La Ley Internacional del Colonialismo

Documento de la Sala de Conferencia

11 ª Sesión del Foro Permanente para las Cuestiones Indígenas de las Naciones Unidas

7-18 de mayo 2012

Presentado por: Professor Robert Miller

            El 8 de enero de 1455, el papa Nicolás V emitió la bula Romanus Pontifex al rey Alfonso de Portugal y le ordenó que en lo que respecto a África:

"Invadir, buscar, capturar, vencer y someter a todos los sarracenos [los musulmanes] y paganos en absoluto, y otros enemigos de Cristo dondequiera que colocan, y los reinos, ducados, principados, dominios, posesiones y todos los bienes movibles e inmuebles en poder absoluto y poseído por ellos y para reducir sus personas a la esclavitud perpetua, y para aplicar y apropiado para él y sus sucesores de los reinos, ducados, condados, principados, dominios, posesiones y bienes, y para convertir a la suya. . . el uso y aprovechamiento. . . [Y que] poseen, estas islas, tierras, puertos y mares, y que son del derecho de poseer y pertenecer a dicho rey Alfonso y sus sucesores. . . "1

            El derecho internacional que autorizo y regulo los seiscientos años de la colonización europea de gran parte del mundo hoy se conoce como la Doctrina de Descubrimiento. A partir de las Cruzadas a Tierra Santa en 1096-1271, los países europeos y la iglesia cristiana comenzó el desarrollo de legalidades para justificar sus supuestos derechos a dominar y colonizar las naciones no cristianas.2  Específicamente, Portugal y España contribuyeron al desarrollo de esta ley a principios de los años 1400 en sus disputas sobre las islas cercanas la península Ibérica y la costa de África.3   La Iglesia se involucró y publicó bulas papales que se cobró la concesión de la soberanía de Portugal y la jurisdicción sobre los pueblos indígenas y la propiedad de las islas y las tierras de África que Portugal afirmaron haber "descubierto".4  Adicionales bulas papales proclamadas en 1493 pretendían conceder a España y Portugal derechos legales para colonizar y explotar el mundo entero.5 A partir de entonces, España y Portugal aplicaron la Doctrina de Descubrimiento en África y América6, y más tarde Inglaterra, Francia, Holanda, Rusia y España utilizan la Doctrina para reclamar por derechos en América del Norte.7  España, Portugal, Inglaterra, Holanda y Francia también utilizaron la Doctrina para reclamar derechos sobre los Pueblos Indígenas y sus tierras y recursos en Asia, el Pacífico y la Oceanía.8  La las sociedades coloniales que resultaron de la colonización europea de gran parte del mundo sigan aplicando la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en contra de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas en la actualidad.9

            En 1885, trece países europeos firmaron un tratado basado en varios de los elementos de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento en el que se acordaron la partición de enormes áreas de Africa.10 Los siete países europeos que colonizaron África, principalmente justificaron sus sistemas coloniales y el robo de tierras, bienes y los derechos humanos en los elementos del derecho internacional de Descubrimiento.11  Por ejemplo, los países europeos firmaron innumerables tratados con las naciones africanas que, al tiempo que reconoce la soberanía de África y sus gobiernos hasta cierta medida, en realidad se limitan la autodeterminación africana y su autogobierno, mientras que inició la explotación de los pueblos, tierras y recursos.12  Países europeos promulgaron numerosas leyes y creó las administraciones coloniales para gobernar y explotar África, y los sistemas judiciales europeos y coloniales tuvieron que resolver muchos problemas sobre la titularidad de los derechos indígenas, las tierras y los recursos en África.13

            Los países escandinavos también aplicaron los elementos de Descubrimiento contra los pueblos Sami para tratar de limitar los derechos de los Sami a la libre determinación y sus derechos territoriales y de propiedad.  La investigación preliminar establece que los casos judiciales de Suecia,14 y Noruega,15 y los materiales históricos muestran que los gobiernos de Suecia, Noruega, Finlandia, y Rusia se han violado los derechos de los Sami y los derechos humanos, también derechos de territorio y la propiedad.16 Los Sami siguen luchando para hacer valer sus derechos en la actualidad.17

            Es evidente que todos los pueblos indígenas necesitan comprender cómo la ley internacional del colonialismo se ha desarrollado; la forma en que se utilizó para denigrarles como seres humanos y luego como se utilizó para robar sus tierras, bienes y derechos, y cómo los ha afectado desde el inicio de la colonización hasta 2012.

            Un estudio de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento y su aplicación en todo el mundo se ve facilitada por la definición de los elementos constitutivos que conforman la Doctrina.  Estos elementos están bien definidos en el juicio principal sobre el tema de Discovery, en el caso del Tribunal de Supremo EE.UU. Johnson v M'Intosh, 21U.S.(8 Wheat.)543(1823).18  El caso de Johnson ha sido muy influyente en la definición de Descubrimiento y clave en decidir las cuestiones relativas a la colonización y los derechos de las Naciones Indígenas.  El caso ha sido citado cientos de veces por los tribunales de Australia19, Canadá20, Nueva Zelanda21, Estados Unidos22, y por el Consejo Privado de Inglaterra en los casos sobre la colonización en África y Canadá.23

            Estos elementos se reflejan, en diversos grados, en las leyes, tratados, casos judiciales, políticas, y las historias de todos los países coloniales europeos y en las sociedades de colonos que los europeos han establecido en todo el mundo.  Los diez elementos que constituyen la Doctrina son muy útiles en el análisis y la comparación de cómo las sociedades de colonizadores utilizan esta ley internacional contra las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.24

1. Primer descubrimiento.  El primer país europeo que descubrió tierras desconocidas por otros europeos reclamó derechos de propiedad y soberanía sobre las tierras y los pueblos indígenas. Un primer descubrimiento, sin embargo, se considera por lo general de crear sólo un título incompleto a esas tierras.

2. La ocupación real y la posesión.  Para activar un "primer descubrimiento" en un título completo reconocido por los demás europeos, un país europeo tenía que ocupar de hecho y poseer las tierras que habían descubierto.  La ocupación se demuestra por lo general por construir fuertes o asentamientos.  La posesión física debía llevarse a cabo en un plazo razonable de tiempo después de un "primer descubrimiento" para crear un título completo.

3. Derecho Preferencial / Título Europeo.  Países europeos que reclamaban un "primer descubrimiento", también pretendía haber adquirido el poder de la preferencia, es decir, el derecho exclusivo de comprar las tierras de los Pueblos Indígenas.  Se trata de una valiosa derecho de propiedad análoga al derecho una opción exclusiva para comprar la tierra.  El gobierno europeo que se cobró el derecho preferencial podría prevenir o adelantarse a cualquier otro gobierno europeo o individuo de la compra de tierras de los pueblos nativos.  La mayoría de las sociedades de colonizadores siguen reclamando este derecho de propiedad sobre las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas en la actualidad.

4. Titulo Indígena/ Nativo. Después de un "primer descubrimiento", los sistemas jurídicos europeos afirmaron que los Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas habían perdido de forma automática el derecho de la plena propiedad de sus tierras. Los europeos entonces afirmaron que las naciones indígenas sólo se conservaron el derecho de ocupar y utilizar sus tierras. Estos derechos pueden durar indefinidamente, sin embargo, si los pueblos indígenas nunca entregan su consentimiento para vender sus tierras al país europeo que reclamaban el derecho de preferencia. Pero si las Naciones Indígenas si optaron por vender sus tierras, sólo se esperaba la venta de tierras al gobierno europeo que pretendía mantener el derecho de preferencia.

5. Limitación de derechos indígenas soberanas y comerciales. Después de un "primer descubrimiento", los poderes europeos afirmaron que las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas perdieron varios aspectos de su soberanía y sus derechos inherentes al comercio internacional y la diplomacia.  Los europeos afirmaron que las naciones indígenas sólo podían interactuar con el gobierno europeo que los "descubrió".

6. La contigüidad. Los Europeos reclamaron una cantidad significativa de tierra contigua a sus descubrimientos y sus alrededores reales y los asentamientos coloniales. El principio de la contigüidad se reclama, por ejemplo, para que el descubrimiento de la desembocadura de un río supuestamente otorgó el país europeo una reclamación sobre todas las tierras regadas por ese río.

7. Terra nullíus. Esta frase significa que una tierra o la tierra que es nula, vacía o despoblada. Bajo la Doctrina de Descubrimiento, si las tierras no estaban ocupadas por cualquier persona o nación, o incluso si estaban ocupadas, pero no estaban siendo utilizados de una manera que los sistemas jurídicos europeos aprobaron, entonces las tierras se consideraron como "vacíos" y disponibles para solicitudes de Descubrimiento. A menudo los europeos se consideran tierras que eran propiedad de hecho, siendo ocupados y utilizados por las Naciones Indígenas, de ser "vacíos" y "abiertos" de estar disponibles para reclamar.

8. El cristianismo. La religión era un aspecto muy importante de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento. Los cristianos afirmaron que los pueblos no cristianos no tienen los mismos derechos a la tierra, la soberanía y la autodeterminación como tenían los cristianos.25 Por otra parte, los europeos afirmaron que tenían el derecho y el deber de convertir a los no cristianos.

9. Civilización. El “modelo” europeo de la "civilización" incluye la idea de que los europeos eran superiores a los Pueblos Indígenas y sus civilizaciones.  Los países europeos afirmaron que el Dios cristiano les había mandado a traer "la civilización" a los pueblos indígenas y ejercer las facultades de paternalismo y la tutela sobre ellos.

10. Conquista. Los europeos afirmaron que podría adquirir, a través de victorias militares, el título absoluto y la propiedad de las tierras de las Naciones Indígenas.  Por analogía, la "conquista" también fue utilizado como un término técnico para describir los supuestos derechos de propiedad y la soberanía adquiridos automáticamente en dominación sobre las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas sólo por pretender hacer de europeos el "primer descubrimiento".

            Las diversas formas y permutaciones de los elementos anteriormente mencionados están presentes en las historias y las leyes de hoy en día y las políticas de todos los países colonizadores y las sociedades coloniales que fueron establecidos por los colonizadores Europeos.  Estos elementos fueron utilizados, y se sigue utilizando, para tratar de justificar las afirmaciones de limitar la soberanía, la propiedad y los derechos humanos de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.  Apoyamos los esfuerzos continuos de los pueblos indígenas para oponerse a la existencia misma de la doctrina del descubrimiento y derogar sus efectos perniciosos.

Acciones propuestas para iniciar la eliminación de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento

Pedimos al Foro Permanente para que adopte estos pasos iniciales para comenzar el proceso de repudiar y revertir la Doctrina de Descubrimiento después de 600 años.

1. Adoptar la solicitud del Documento de la Sala de Conferencia sometido por la Confederación Haudenosaunee, y el American Indian Law Alliance, de que el Foro Permanente de Pueblos Indígenas convoca una reunión de expertos para crear un estudio internacional sobre la Doctrina del Descubrimiento y sus efectos sobre los pueblos indígenas, y que presente dicho estudio, junto con las recomendaciones, en el Foro Permanente en 2014.

2. Abogar que todos los Estados del mundo adoptan la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas como ley nacional de obligado cumplimiento.

3. Abogar que todos los Estados revisen sus leyes, reglamentos y políticas que afectan a naciones y pueblos indígenas y derogar leyes, reglamentos y políticas que reflejan los prejuicios etnocéntricos, feudales, y religiosos de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento.  Por otra parte, los Estados deben realizar estas revisiones en plena consulta con las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas y con su consentimiento libre, previo e informado.

4. Hacer un llamado a todos los estados para educar a sus ciudadanos en los programas escolares y por otros medios acerca de la historia verdadera y completa de la colonización y la aplicación de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento como ley internacional.

5. Hacer un llamado a todas las iglesias a unirse con los pueblos indígenas en el repudio de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento y cualquier papel que las iglesias pueden haber desempeñado en la creación de la Doctrina y en su aplicación en contra de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.  Somos conscientes de que varias iglesias y organizaciones de la iglesia ya lo han hecho: la Iglesia Episcopal en el año 2009, la Iglesia Anglicana de Canadá en 2010, y el Consejo Mundial de Iglesias en 2012.  Pedimos a otras iglesias a seguir su ejemplo.

_____________________________

[1] European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, at 23 (Frances G. Davenport ed, 1917).

2 Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500-c. 1800 (1995); Robert A. Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990).

3 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller & Micheline D’Angelis, Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery, 37 Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 1 (2011); Robert J. Miller, Lisa Lesage & Sebastian Lopez Escarcena, The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile, 89 Neb. L. Rev. 819 (2011).

4 See, e.g., Williams, supra note 2, at 72 (bull of 1436 regarding the Canary Islands); European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (bull of 1455 regarding the west coast of Africa); Church and State Through the Centuries 146-53 (Sidney Z. Ehler & John B. Morrall trans. & eds, 1967).

5 European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (translating four bulls from 1493).

6 See, e.g., Brazil, supra note 2, at xx; Chile, supra note 2, at xx.

7 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt & Tracey Lindberg, Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies 26-170 (2010); Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny xx (2006).

8 See, e.g., Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at 171-246; Blake A. Watson, The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 34 Seattle U. L. Rev. 507 (2011); Robert J. Miller & Jacinta Ruru, An Indigenous Lens into Comparative Law: The Doctrine of Discovery in the United States and New Zealand, 111 West Vir. L. Rev. 849 (2009).

9 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 847 (2012); Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at xx; Brazil, supra note 3, at xx; Chile, supra note 3, at xx; City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005).

10 See, e.g., General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa (1885) (at http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eracolonialism/l/bl-BerlinAct1885.htm); S.E. Crowe, The Berlin West African Conference 1884-1885 xx (1942). 

11 See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, 1885-1939 xvii-48 (Toyin Falola ed., 2002); M.E. Chamberlain, The Scramble for Africa xx (2d ed. 1999); 6 The Cambridge History of Africa 1870-1905, at 26-729 (Roland Oliver & G.N. Sanderson eds, 1985); VII U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, General History of Africa: Africa under Colonial Domination 1880-1935, at xx (A. Adu Boahen ed, 1985); Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960, at xx (Peter Duignan & L.H. Gann eds, 1969-1975) (5 volumes).

12 See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 5-6, 8-9, 29, 33; 6 The Cambridge History of Africa, supra note 11, at 127, 442, 449, 453, 724-27. 

13 See, e.g., The Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), Int'l Ct Justice 4 (1975); Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 16-20.

14 Cf. North Frostviken Sami Village v. State, S.Ct. Decision No. DT 2, Case No. 324/76 (1981) (Supreme Court of Sweden).

15 Cf. Landowners and right-holders in Manndalen, et al v. The Norwegian State, Serial No. 5B/2001, No. 340/1999 (2001) (Supreme Court of Norway); Sirum et al v. Essand Reindeer Pasturing District, Seiral No. 4B/2001 (2001) (Norway); Riast/Hylling Sami v. Kjell Bendixvold et al, Frostating Lagmannsrett LF-1995-00034 A, Supreme Court HR-1997-00061 A, No. 96/1996 (1997) (Norway).

16 See, e.g., Lehtola Veli-Pekka, The Sami siida and the Nordic states from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 1900s, in Conflict and Cooperation in the North 183-94 (Kristina Karppi & Johan Eriksson, eds, 2000); Einar Niemi, History of Minorities: The Sami and the Kvens, in Making a Historical Culture: Historiography in Norway 325-46 (William H. Hubbard et al, eds, 1995); The Sami National Minority in Sweden 7-140 (Birgitta Jahreskog, ed, 1982).

17 See, e.g., Eva Josefsen, Norwegian Legislation and Administration - Sami Land Rights, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2007); Elisabeth Einarsbol, Some legal considerations concerning Saami rights in saltwater, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2006); Henry Minde, Assimilation of the Sami – Implementation and Consequences, Galdu Cala (No. 3, 2005).

18 Johnson v. McIntosh is a very important case regarding the Doctrine of Discovery and Indigenous affairs as is demonstrated by the reams of books and articles written about it.  See, e.g., Michael C. Blumm, Why Aboriginal Title is a Fee Simple Absolute, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 975 (2012); Lindsay G. Robertson, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their Lands (2005); Eric Kades, The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1065 (2000).

19 A computer search reveals that ten Australia cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Western Australia v. Ward, [2002] 213 CLR 1, 76 ALJR 1098; Mabo v Queensland (No 2), (1992) 175 CLR 1, 107 ALR 1.

20 A computer search reveals that up to forty-four Canadian cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 1 S.C.R. 1075 (Supreme Court of Canada); Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. British Columbia, [2011] 55 C.E.L.R. (3d) 165, 15 B.C.L.R. (5th) 322 (British Columbia Supreme Court). 

21 Several New Zealand cases have also cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa, [2003] 2 NZLR 643; Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, [1877] 3 NZ Jur (NS) 72; R. v. Symonds, [1847] NZPCC 387.

22 Johnson v M’Intosh has been cited hundreds of times by federal and state courts in the United States. See, e.g., City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005); Attorney’s Process & Invest. Services v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 609 F.3d 927 (8^th Cir. 2010).

23 Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); In re Southern Rhodesia, A.C. 211 (1918) (Privy Council); Canada v. Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637 (Privy Council); St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas. 46 (Privy Council).

24 Native America, supra note 7, at 3-5.

25See Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (2008).

Request for Intervention to the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Professor James Anaya

Dear Special Rapporteur Anaya,

In furtherance of the objectives of the Conference and Consultation on the Significance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which you hosted today at the University of Arizona School of Law, please consider submitting a formal inquiry to the US Justice Department regarding the following issue, namely:

The continued persecution and discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in Maricopa County, Arizona including exclusion from the procedures of investigation and remedy involving racial profiling currently under way in Maricopa County by the US Justice Department.

*******

TONATIERRA

PO Box 24009

Phoenix, AZ 85074

Memorandum to the US Justice Department

February 7, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention via reports in the media today that the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be opening up an office of community ombudsman to address issues of concern by the public relevant to the scope of law enforcement policies and operations of the agency.

We were also informed this morning that officials of the Justice Department are meeting with community leaders and organizations to discuss the current status of the US Justice Department Letter of Findings regarding the investigation of the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff, J. Arpaio.

The long march in defense of civil rights for All Peoples which began with the dismantling of discriminatory racial profiling practices that benefited the European American "white" constituencies with ethnic preferences in electoral, educational, economic, and legal systems has many chapters, but it begins with the basic recognition of universal Human Dignity and compassion.

The crossing of the Edmund Pettus bridge and the anguish of Bloody Sunday on March 7, 1965 are significant mileposts in this journey, and must be recalled now to contextualize the actions of yet another Sheriff in yet another state, for as Martin Luther King said after Selma in 1967 and before his assassination in 1968: "We have emerged from the era of Civil Rights to the Era of Human Rights."

Human Rights are inherent.  The United States of North America is a signatory of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  These two facts are realities that must be brought to bear to evaluate the scope of the issues mentioned at the beginning of the memorandum, but there is more.

On September 13, 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The US was one of four governments that opposed the declaration including the anglophile states of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand who as derivatives, represent immigrant sovereignties that are residuals of the colonies of the British Empire.

Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Sheriff Clark of Selma also opposed the tides of justice, and in the name of the "Rule of Law" committed acts of atrocity and brutality that have left lasting wounds on the visage of the concept of America as "Land of the Free".

Therefore, in light of the fact that the issues of racial profiling and discriminatory policing that have begun to be addressed in the US Justice Department Letter of Findings regarding the Maricopa County Sheriff's office and the Melendrez vs. Arpaio decision by the US Court of Justice HAVE NOT mentioned the systematic practices of racial profiling against Indigenous Peoples in particular as fundamental to the overall violations of Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Indigenous Rights within the scope of law enforcement operations in Maricopa County:

We now request a meeting on the ground with the representatives of your department to discuss and explore venues to address this ongoing and pervasive pogrom of "ethnic cleansing" under the guise of the "Rule of Law."

Please contact me at your convenience to discuss this proposal.

 Sincerely,

Tupac Enrique Acosta. Yaotachcauh

Tlahtokan Nahuacalli

TONATIERRA

*******

"Stopping Mexicans to make sure they are legal is not racist.  If you have dark skin, you have dark skin! Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegal."

Files of Maricopa County Sheriff J. Arpaio,

quoted on page 28 of US District Court Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS

Document 494 12/23/11

The Geography of Self Determination

The Geography of Self Determination

Tupac Enrique Acosta

When the United Nations passed General Assembly resolution 1514 in 1960, declaring “All peoples have the right of self determination”, one of the arguments put forward by the member states of the UN was to clothe the concept of territorial integrity of the states themselves as being protected under the same principle.  In fact, section 6 of the same resolution GA1514 states:

“Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

In essence, these two statements from the seminal document that made colonization a crime for the first time in international law established an inherent conflict in the UN processes that now, half a century later, have come to a definitive point in terms of historical resolution. 

Nowhere is this more evident than by the blatant efforts by the anglophile bloc of government states (US-Canada-New Zealand-Australia) to block the full recognition of the Right of Self Determination in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The position of these government states is an attempt to place the right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples as existing only within the parameters of domestic policy and legal systems, even though these same systems are products of colonization itself.

World Water One

www.www.www

The political arguments on both sides of the issue are in conflict, not just because of the doctrines of power that gave birth to the concepts of dominion which define the states and the social relations of their member constituencies, but also because the framework for resolution of the issues within the UN system is incompetent to address the spirituality of the earth based territorial reality of the Indigenous Nations, and the system itself is incoherent according to the geographic sciences of modern times.

What is lacking is a mechanism to define the issues in common terms, outside of the intellectual framework of colonization and dominion. What is missing is a clarification of the concept of territorial integrity, as a dimension of ecological and social sustainability and not a bastard relic from the intellectual Regime of Doctrines spawned by the Divine Right of Kings.

Emergence of the Fourth Principle

GA 1514 was followed by GA1541, which specified principles that defined three options for the attainment of “a full measure of self-government”, as the only contemplated political trajectories at the time for relief from colonization.  These are:

(a)           Emergence as a sovereign independent State;

(b)           Free association with an independent state; or

(c)           Integration with an independent state.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the transfer of territorial jurisdiction from Indigenous Nations authorities to dominion concepts of control and allegiance by the states is historically flawed and legally suspect.  There are unquantifiable elements. The case of the Western Shoshone is contemporary evidence that this is not just history but reality in the context of the hemisphere of the Americas, yet there is a larger issue.

The social and geographic realities of the Indigenous Peoples as Nations continue to exist as a political anomaly in terms of the international legal system of the United Nations.  Specifically, in this hemisphere of Abya Yala [the Americas] not only is this true in the face of centuries of colonization but also in terms of the options for relief from the crime.

Self definition being the precept of self determination, the three options of GA 1541 do not adequately describe the outcome of principles of self-determination which would define the Indigenous Peoples and our continuing relationship to our ancestral territories and surviving traditional societies.

The Emergence of the Indigenous Nations is a daily occurrence, one which is manifested in accord with natural laws of complementarity and harmony with the natural world, which includes our fellow human beings.  This ancient tradition is the shared cultural infrastructure of our confederations of families, clans, communities Pueblos and Nations. It could be characterized as a State of Integrity, which is not independent but interdependent within the network of ecosystems that describe our traditional homelands, sacred sites, territories and nations: the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth.

Thus the Emergence of the Fourth Principle for decolonization: INTERDEPENDENCE, self-determination as an expression of community ecology and environmental sustainability. It is a particular and universal principle that may serve as a threshold concept to arrive at that ancient place once called the New World, if only we could create and travel guided by maps of the geography of self-determination.

NAHUACALLI

Embassy of Indigenous Peoples
802 N. 7th Street     Phoenix, AZ 85006

c/o TONATIERRA

P.O. Box 24009 Phoenix, AZ 85074
tonal@tonatierra.org

TONATIERRA
www.tonatierra.org


#TIMEisNOW
Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth 
******************

TIME is NOW:

Architectures of the States and the
Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth

As Peoples of Mother Earth, we collectively determine to regenerate our relationships among ourselves within a Cultural Climate of Mutual Respect, Inclusion, Complementarity, and Self Determination beyond the existing constrains of the international systems of state sovereignty and in responsibility to the well being of the future generations;

Recognizing that unless this fundamental dimension of international relationships among human societies at the planetary level is first recognized, established and affirmed, there will be no sustainable progress in addressing effectively and in timely manner the Climate Chaos scenario that now befalls all of Humanity due to the impacts on Global Climate exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions by industrial society and extractive industries in particular in complicity with national government states and existing international monetary systems and institutions.

Therefore we proclaim and hereby reaffirm in collective Responsibility as Peoples of Mother Earth, in Equality with all Peoples, our collective Right of Representation and Self Determination in addressing the issues before the COP20 beyond the constraints of the architecture of the States and their agreements;

We further affirm and proclaim in Full, Effective, and Complete exercise of our equally shared Right of Self Determination as Peoples of Mother Earth, that our Sacred Mother Earth is subject of the Right of Self Determination beyond the limited juridical constraints of the Westphalian System of State Sovereignty represented in UN system and the international architectures of personality and procedures of negotiation and agreements.

NAHUACALLI

www.nahuacalli.org

Embassy of Indigenous Peoples

c/o TONATIERRA

P.O. Box 24009 Phoenix, AZ 85074

Email: tonal@tonatierra.org

www.tonatierra.org

Draft Agenda: Indigenous Peoples Preparatory Meeting 2012

11th Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
May 5th and 6th from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Church Center for the United Nations
777 UN Plaza on the 2nd Floor - New York City
 
Draft Agenda
Saturday, May 5th 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
1. Opening Thanksgiving - Welcome and Words of Wisdom by hosts and Elders
 
2. Selection of Chairpersons (Co-Chairs fluent in Spanish and English)
 
3. Acceptance of Agenda
 
4. Permanent Forum Agenda:
 

• PF 3. Doctrine of Discovery
  Inclusion of indigenous peoples’ human rights in national constitutions
  Study of good practices in the Artic Combating violence against Indigenous women
   
• PF 4. Human rights:
  (a) Implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
  (b) Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and other United Nations human rights mechanisms.
   
• PF 5. Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds including WIPO.
   
• PF 6. Rights of indigenous peoples to food and food sovereignty Shifting cultivation and the sociocultural integrity of indigenous peoples
   
• PF 7. World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014
   
• PF 8 Half-day discussion on Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia
   
• PF 9 Indigenous peoples, transnational corporations and other business enterprises
   
• 5th anniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

5. Scheduling of Caucus meetings during the week
6. Recorder for Indigenous Caucus
7. Drafting teams for Caucus statements
8. Other matters
a) HRC Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – July 2012
b) OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
c) Earth Summit Rio+20
d) Indigenous Prep-com, June, 2013 Alta, Norway
e)
f)
g)
h)
 
Lunch Break 12:00 - 1:00 each day (lunch will be provided) 

Sunday, April 18th
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
 

8. Review by Chairs of first Caucus day

11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
9. Introduction of and discussion with the expert members of the Permanent Forum
 
10. Briefing by staff members of the Permanent Forum’s Secretariat
2:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
 
Continuation of Business
 
3:45 Closing Thanksgiving
Please note that the Church Center closes at 4:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday