Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

negative side, partly as result of the way they were established, the tribal courts andthe codes they enforce are not uniquely Indian. Tribal courts were a form of disputeresolution imposed by the federal government (Canadian Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples 1996a page 184). At the same time, the tribal court system is notsimply a static creation of the federal government. It is a dynamic system which insome instances has been changing to incorporate Indigenous cultural values. Thelimits imposed by the federal government have not restricted the development ofIndigenous justice systems. For instance, the Navajo Nation has undertaken a programover the last decade to introduce Navajo common law as the law of preference inwritten opinions, as a means of interpretation of codes and as the source of principlesand rules. Traditional justice methods have been adapted through the introduction of aNavajo Peacemaker Court (Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996a pages187-191).While acknowledging shortcomings of the tribal court system, theCommissioners of the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry noted that AmericanIndian tribes were committed to the preservation and expansion of their court system.The system was perceived by tribal members to be,… more understanding of their situation, more considerate of their customs, their values andtheir cultures, more respectful of their unique rights and status, and likely to be more fair tothem than the non-Aboriginal justice system has been. In such a situation, where the courthas the inherent respect of accused and the community, the impact and effect of its decisionswill be that much greater …All this leads us to conclude that tribal courts clearly have played a vital role in meeting theneeds of American Indians for a fair, just and culturally acceptable legal system (1991Volume 1 pages 296 and 298).CanadaThe Canadian Government has recognised Aboriginal autonomy and selfgovernmentand has made specific settlements with different Aboriginal First Nationsincluding land claim settlements and self-government agreements. The CanadianGovernment announced in 1995 that it would negotiate with Aboriginal First Nationsto define the exact powers to be transferred, the jurisdictions to be exercised and thenature of fiscal responsibilities (Iorns 1996 page 23).The devolution of child welfare and criminal justice, including juvenile justice,to Aboriginal nations has occurred to some extent in a number of areas. A number ofAboriginal self-government agreements which have been negotiated, including fourYukon agreements, have explicitly included jurisdiction over child welfare matters.A joint approach to criminal justice issues is being developed in some Aboriginalnations (Iorns 1996). As a result of the Yukon self-government agreements, theYukon First Nations will not unilaterally exercise power over the administration ofjustice for at least ten years, during which time power can only be exercised subject toa separate joint justice agreement (page 25). A different approach has been taken bythe Sechelt Peoples who were granted self-government under Federal legislation. TheSechelts have been granted almost total control of their affairs including their ownconstitution. The arrangement attempts to replace externally imposed authority with