Abstract
This article argues against privileging the expectations of settlers over those of dispossessed peoples. I assume in this article that historical rights to occupancy do not persist through all changes in circumstances, but a theory of justice should reduce perverse incentives to unjustly settle on land in hopes of legitimating occupancy. Margaret Moore, in her 2015 book, A Political Theory of Territory, tries to balance these intuitions through an argument based on legitimate expectations. I argue that Moore’s attempt to reduce perverse incentives (through expectation-altering institutional design) fails. Moore unduly privileges settler expectations, especially over those of indigenous peoples. I criticize United States court decisions resurrecting the expectations of past settlers in the allotment era (which share structural features with Moore’s arguments). Lastly, distinguishing between ‘final’ supersession of historical injustice through changing circumstances, and ‘dormant’ supersession, shows how indigenous claims to land and jurisdiction may revive.
Acknowledgements
For their helpful comments and suggested revisions, the author would like to thank Jared Alessandroni, Arthur Applbaum, Rahul Kumar, Irina Manta, Yael Peled, Katie Unger, Daniel Viehoff, Joseph Waligore, the anonymous referees and the editors of this journal, and the participants and organizers of a 2016 workshop on ‘Justice and Legitimate Expectations’ at the University of Graz in Graz, Austria.
References
‘1949 Armistice Agreements’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements (accessed on August 3, 2017).Search in Google Scholar
‘A Complete Text of the Bradley Bill’. http://www.nativesunnews.today/news/2016-02-17/More_News/A_Complete_Text_of_the_Bradley_Bill.html (accessed on September 10, 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Alfred, T. (2005). ‘Sovereignty’, in J. Barker (ed.). Sovereignty Matters (London: University of Nebraska Press), pp. 33–50.10.2307/j.ctt1dnncqc.5Search in Google Scholar
Barsh, R.L. (1991). ‘Progressive-Era Bureaucrats and the Unity of Twentieth-Century Indian Policy’. American Indian Quarterly 15 (1): 1–17.10.2307/1185205Search in Google Scholar
Barsh, R.L. and Henderson, J.Y. (1980). The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty (Berkeley: University of California Press).10.1525/9780520326743Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, B. (1996). Time Present, Time Past: A Memoir (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).Search in Google Scholar
Brown, A. (2012). ‘Rawls, Buchanan, and the Legal Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations’. Social Theory and Practice 38 (4): 617–644.10.5840/soctheorpract201238434Search in Google Scholar
Butt, D. (2009). Rectifying International Injustice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218240.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. ____ (2005). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-855P.ZO (accessed on September 10, 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Duthu, N.B. (2013). Shadow Nations: Tribal Sovereignty and the Limits of Legal Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199735860.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fort, K.E. (2011). ‘Disruption and Impossibility: The New Laches and the Unfortunate Resolution of the Modern Iroquois Land Claims’. Wyoming Law Review 11 (2): 375–408.Search in Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gans, C. (2008). A Just Zionism (New York: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195340686.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Getches, D.H., Wilkinson, C.F., and Williams, R. eds. (1998). Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law: 4th Edition (St. Paul, MN: West Group).Search in Google Scholar
Hendrix, B.A. (2008). Ownership, Authority, and Self-Determination (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press).Search in Google Scholar
Irlbacher-Fox, S. (2013). ‘Justifying the Dispossession of Indigenous Peoples: Discursive Uses of Temporal Characterizations of Injustice’, in S.I. Tomsons and L. Mayer (eds.). Philosophy and Aboriginal Rights: Critical Dialogues (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press), pp. 373–387.Search in Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, D. (2015). ‘Autonomy, Residence, and Return’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 18 (5): 529–546.10.1080/13698230.2014.927117Search in Google Scholar
Marmor, A. (2004). ‘Entitlement to Land and the Right of Return: An Embarrassing Challenge for Liberal Zionism’, in L. Meyer (ed.). Justice in Time: Responding to Historical Injustice (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft), pp. 319–333.10.2139/ssrn.424622Search in Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2013). ‘On Rights to Land, Expulsions, and Corrective Justice’. Ethics & International Affairs 27 (4): 429–447.10.1017/S0892679413000373Search in Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2015). A Political Theory of Territory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190222246.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2016a). ‘Justice and Colonialism’. Philosophical Compass 11 (8): 447–461.10.1111/phc3.12337Search in Google Scholar
Moore, M. (2016b). ‘Legitimate Expectations and Land’, paper presented at a workshop on ‘Justice and Legitimate Expectations’ at the University of Graz, Graz, Austria, June 29, 2016 – July 1, 2016.10.1515/mopp-2017-0002Search in Google Scholar
Royster, J. (1995). ‘The Legacy of Allotment’. Arizona State Law Journal 27: 1–78.10.1017/9781108770804.015Search in Google Scholar
Sanderson, D. (2011). ‘Against Supersession’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24 (1): 155–182.10.1017/S0841820900005105Search in Google Scholar
Simmons, A.J. (2016). Boundaries of Authority (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190603489.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Singer, J.W. (2006). ‘Nine-Tenths of the Law: Title, Possession & Sacred Obligations’. Connecticut Law Review 38: 605–629.Search in Google Scholar
Stilz, A. (2013). ‘Occupancy Rights and the Wrong of Removal’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 41 (4): 324–356.10.1111/papa.12018Search in Google Scholar
Tinker, P.H. (2011). ‘“Justifiable Expectations” and Reservation Disestablishment in Murphy V. Sirmons and Osage Nation v. Irby’. Dartmouth Law Journal 9: 120–162.10.2139/ssrn.1800766Search in Google Scholar
Toensing, G.C. (2013). ‘The Oneida Nation and New York Sign a Historic Agreement’, Indian Country Today Media Network.com, May 5, 2013. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/29/oneida-nation-and-new-york-sign-historic-agreement-149583 (accessed on September 14, 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics 103 (1): 4–28.10.1086/293468Search in Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2004). ‘Settlement, Return, and the Supersession Thesis’. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 5 (2): 237–268.10.2202/1565-3404.1093Search in Google Scholar
Waligore, T. (2016). ‘Rawls, Self-Respect, and Assurance: How Past Injustice Changes What Publicly Counts as Justice’. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 15 (1): 42–66.10.1177/1470594X15599100Search in Google Scholar
Williams, R.A. (1990). The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (New York: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
