Sacred Obligations

Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights

Rebecca Tsosie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1615-1640
Number of pages26
JournalUCLA Law Review
Volume47
Issue number6
StatePublished - Aug 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

treaty
obligation
justice
discourse
sovereignty
Group
American Indian
self-determination
respect
ethnic group
university teacher

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Sacred Obligations : Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights. / Tsosie, Rebecca.

In: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 6, 08.2000, p. 1615-1640.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tsosie, Rebecca. / Sacred Obligations : Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights. In: UCLA Law Review. 2000 ; Vol. 47, No. 6. pp. 1615-1640.
@article{a1cd53ff3493458abd59a268090584f1,
title = "Sacred Obligations: Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights",
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.",
author = "Rebecca Tsosie",
year = "2000",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "1615--1640",
journal = "UCLA Law Review",
issn = "0041-5650",
publisher = "American Statistical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sacred Obligations

T2 - Intercultural Justice and the Discourse of Treaty Rights

AU - Tsosie, Rebecca

PY - 2000/8

Y1 - 2000/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0347740425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0347740425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 1615

EP - 1640

JO - UCLA Law Review

JF - UCLA Law Review

SN - 0041-5650

IS - 6

ER -