[Kamq]

> have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you"

The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it?

My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations.

I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.

[sidkshatriya]

> I might be getting way too pedantic with this

Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved.

Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions.

When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party).

If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them.

Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.

[Kamq]

> then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible.

I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history.

> If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply.

I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else?

After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough.

This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves.

Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?

[sidkshatriya]

> I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break?

Interesting point -- it gave me food for thought. At various points of time, many voters were against rights for blacks, against interacial marriage, against desegregation in schools, against rights for gay people etc. On many occasions the courts stepped in and made decisions that the politicians couldn't make on grounds of equity, fairness, human rights etc. So enforcement of some of these treaties should be a matter for the courts.

It would be interesting to read some of these treaties and see exactly what they say. I'm sure the US Supreme court has already ruled on this matter and the issue is considered settled. My guess is that many of these treaties are subject to the will of the executive and legislature. So if they don't want to enforce them, courts beyond a point can't do much. In any case, courts are also political creatures: they sense the mood of the citizens and the various polical power structures. I doubt that indigenous people would be politically or financially important in their calculus. The best case indigenous people can make is fairness. Even then, their claims by now are difficult to prove. They might say a parcel of land was owned by them -- however, history is patchy and often oral. Records are also made by the victors and therefore again stacked against them too.

Generally it's just a good idea to give a local population some compensation for the large externality a mining operation creates, treaty or not. Democracies owe it to their citizens which are their "shareholders". Not investing in the local communities and say they are owed nothing means that future generations are unproductive, have issues with crime, alcohol, drugs and feel disconnected. Invest in people to make them productive and whichever country you live in will be more happy and prosperous. Otherwise the whole country just gets dragged down a bit. It makes sense morally and economically.

> Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?

Again a good question. In the domain of international relations it is still effectively the law of the jungle. The UN is supposed to protect the rights of the small and weak countries but that is in theory only.

Still, countries are less likely to go invading their smaller neighbours in 2020 than, say, 1820. So you can say the law of the jungle while still generally applicable is no longer as starkly apparent as it once was. Maybe by 2120, the UN will be truly on the side of fairness rather than military/economic might.

However, within countries domestic law is all about using equity and fairness as a principle. The law of the jungle does NOT apply; stronger parties cannot impose their will on the weaker party just because they can. Domestic violence is a crime. Racism/discrimination is a crime. Similarly, dispossesing indigenous people from the lands they enjoyed and casting them aside definitely feels unfair. Allowing them to levy small charges and taxes (subject to overall control and veto by state/federal government) on their traditional lands (for which some historical records or reporting exists) is nothing different to how cities levy all kinds of taxes on businesses operating in their "territory". These taxes should be used to the betterment of the whole community rather than get concentrated in the hands of the powerful elders. Maybe the distribution can be done by the state/federal government. Anyways I'm sure all this has been written about and I'm not adding anything new to the subject.

[defrost]

My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations.

History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent."

https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties

Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_...

The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.

[toast0]

My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1]

If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.

I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though?

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)

[Kamq]

> If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.

This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject.

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.