Reid Ginoza at 02:15, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T02:15:27Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:53, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:53:40Z

New page

D. LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND
COMPENSATION
Native groups have a l s o made claims
t h a t they should be given compensation
for loss of " s o v e r e i g n t y . " This
s e c t i o n defines s o v e r e i g n t y and then
c o n s i d e r s whether the law p r o v i d es
compensation for i t s loss in the
c o n t e x t of the f a c t s r e l e v a n t to
n a t i v e Hawaiians.
The Office of Hawaiian A f f a i rs
d e f i n e s s o v e r e i g n t y as the power to
c o n t r o l i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l a f f a i rs
and the r i g h t of s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t . 158/
The United S t a t e s courts have examined
t h e concept of s o v e r e i g n t y for I n d i an
t r i b e s and t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n would be
a p p l i c a b l e as well to n a t i ve
Hawaiians:
The powers of the Indian
t r i b e s are, in g e n e r a l,
" i n h e r e n t powers of a l i m i t ed
s o v e r e i g n t y which has never
been e x t i n g u i s h e d . . . " Before
t h e coming of Europeans, the
t r i b e s were s e l f - g o v e r n i ng
s o v e r e i g n p o l i t i c al
communities. [Cites o m i t t e d ].
I n d i a n t r i b e s a r e , of course,
no longer "possessed of the
f u l l a t t r i b u t e s of
s o v e r e i g n t y . " . . . T h e i r
i n c o r p o r a t i o n with the
t e r r i t o r y of the United S t a t e s,
and t h e i r acceptance of i ts
p r o t e c t i o n , n e c e s s a r i ly
d i v e s t e d them of some a s p e c ts
of the s o v e r e i g n t y which they
had p r e v i o u s l y e x e r c i s e d . . . B ut
our cases recognize that the
I n d i a n t r i b e s have not given up
t h e i r f u l l s o v e r e i g n t y . We
have r e c e n t l y s a i d : "Indian
t r i b e s are unique a g g r e g a t i o ns
p o s s e s s i n g a t t r i b u t e s of
s o v e r e i g n t y over both t h e ir
members and t h e i r t e r r i t o r y . . ."
The s o v e r e i g n t y that the Indian
t r i b e s r e t a i n is of a unique
and l i m i t e d c h a r a c t e r . It
e x i s t s only at the sufferance
of Congress and is s u b j e c t to
complete defeasance. But u n t il
Congress a c t s , the t r i b es
r e t a i n t h e i r e x i s t i n g sovereiqn
powers. In sum, Indian t r i b es
s t i l l possess those aspects of
s o v e r e i g n t y not withdrawn by
t r e a t y or s t a t u t e , or by
i m p l i c a t i o n as a necessary
r e s u l t of t h e i r dependent
s t a t u s . . . 1 5 9 /
The p a r t of t h e i r s o v e r e i g n t y that
Indian t r i b e s have " i m p l i c i t l y l o s t by
v i r t u e of t h e i r dependent s t a t u s " is
t h e power to c o n t r o l t h e i r e x t e r n al
r e l a t i o n s with non-members of the
t r i b e . 160/ As a r e s u l t , Indian
t r i b e s are not free to a l i e n a t e t h e ir
land to n o n - I n d i a n s , to have " d i r e ct
commercial or governmental r e l a t i o ns
with foreign n a t i o n s , " or to e x e r c i se
.criminal j u r i s d i c t i o n over non-members
i n t r i b a l c o u r t s . 161/
The s o v e r e i g n t y r e t a i n e d by Indian
t r i b e s encompasses the power of t r i b al
s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t and the power to
c o n t r o l i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s among the
members of the t r i b e . 162/ Thus,
I n d i a n t r i b e s r e t a i n t h e i r power to
determine t r i b a l membership, r e g u l a te
domestic r e l a t i o n s , promulgate rules
of i n h e r i t a n c e for t r i b a l members, and
e x e r c i s e criminal j u r i s d i c t i o n over
t r i b a l members. 163/
For n a t i v e Hawaiians, by analogy,
t h e r e are claims that native Hawaiians
l o s t a l l a t t r i b u t e s of s o v e r e i g n t y—
t h e power to deal with foreign
n a t i o n s , to c o n t r o l i n t e r n al
r e l a t i o n s , and to govern themselves.
It has been argued that the power of
self-government was e f f e c t i v e l y lost
with the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the
P r o v i s i o n a l Government in 1893, and
was t o t a l l y l o s t when the T e r r i t o r i al
Government was e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant to
t h e Organic Act of 1900 (31 S t a t.
141). 164/ Even if h i s t o r y had f u l ly
e s t a b l i s h e d these claims, which the
p r e c e d i n g chapter does not, native
Hawaiians could not be compensated for
l o s s of s o v e r e i g n t y.
346

Template:Nhsc-v1-346 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 02:15, 7 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 20:53, 10 March 2006