LEADER 00000nam  2200289   4500 
001    AAINR13258 
005    20070613072038.5 
008    070613s2005                        eng d 
020    9780494132586 
035    (UnM)AAINR13258 
040    UnM|cUnM 
100 1  Lochead, Karen E 
245 10 Reconciling dispossession? The legal and political 
       accommodation of native title in Canada and Australia 
300    384 p 
500    Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-
       03, Section: A, page: 1086 
502    Thesis (Ph.D.)--Simon Fraser University (Canada), 2005 
520    Because increasing numbers of Indigenous people are 
       choosing to work within the legal and political 
       institutions of their colonisers to achieve native title 
       recognition and respect, a critical question is: can (post
       -)colonial legal and political institutions meaningfully 
       redress the historic and ongoing dispossession of 
       Indigenous Peoples or does the colonial nature of these 
       institutions inherently predispose them to (intentionally 
       or unintentionally) perpetuate dispossession? This study 
       seeks to answer this critical question by analyzing the 
       legal and political accommodation of native title in 
       Canada and Australia using the neo-institutional lens of 
       path dependence as an explanatory analytic framework 
520    In sum, characterizing native title's legal and political 
       accommodation as a self-reinforcing path dependent 
       sequence, this study argues that the different degrees of 
       recognition and accommodation afforded native title by the
       legal and political institutions of (post-)colonial Canada
       and Australia can be meaningfully explained with reference
       to these countries' different (and historically 
       contingent) recognition and accommodation of indigenous 
       rights to land during their earliest years of colonial 
       settlement. This interpretation of events not only 
       provides a meaningful explanation for colonial history's 
       continuing role in the legal and political accommodation 
       of native title in Canada and Australia, it also provides 
       a meaningful explanation for this study's four central 
       findings: (i) the legal and political recognition  of 
       native title is relatively more extensive and secure in 
       the Canadian case than it is in the Australian case; (ii) 
       the judicial construction  of native title at common law 
       has produced a relatively stronger real property right in 
       the Canadian case than it has in the Australian case; 
       (iii) Canada's comprehensive claims policy has given 
       Indigenous Peoples a relatively stronger ability to assert
       and defend claims of continuing native title than has 
       Australia's Native Title Act; and, (iv) the ability of 
       Indigenous Peoples to procure formal legal and/or 
       political  confirmation of their unique territorial rights
       (i.e. continuing native title) is little different today 
       than it was prior to the recognition of native title at 
       common law and the subsequent recognition of native title 
       in central government policy 
590    School code: 0791 
590    DDC 
650  4 Political Science, Public Administration 
690    0617 
710 20 Simon Fraser University (Canada) 
773 0  |tDissertation Abstracts International|g67-03A 
856 40 |uhttp://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/
       advanced?query=NR13258