Identity such as language, religion amongst others implies sovereignty, and from the struggle of the Native Americans in Hawaii and Alaska, albeit approached differently, defines the process towards sovereignty. This paper explores and discusses the sovereignty claims of the native tribes in Alaska and in Hawaii, the 49th and 50th states of the country respectively.
As a matter of fact, efficient public service delivery can be disregarded for a chance to indulge in self governance. Nonetheless, with the federal government and the state governments responsible for a number of services for the people in Alaska, including the natives, the relevance of the Alaskan sovereign and the Hawaiian push for tribal sovereigns has been brought into question. The native Hawaiians situation with regards to sovereign assertions is markedly different from the Alaskan situation. However, the tribes in Native Hawaiians tribes had a centralized governing system with a royal queen being at the helm of the authority of the land before colonization and eventual annexation by the United States. Presently, the United States of America exhibit a three spiral form of sovereignty: federal, state and tribal governments.
The sovereign status of the native tribes in Alaska has been defined as axiomatic, and this implies that the right to self govern is self evident. The Alaskan natives, similar to other tribes in the Americas, have governed themselves for thousands of years a similar pattern across America’s native tribes came. Assertions of tribal sovereignty as it is presently exist amongst the native Alaskan tribe took very many years to achieve fruition. During the years of sovereignty claims, the tribes used a combination political as well as legal activism.
Sovereign assertion achieved by the native Indian tribes over the years is acknowledged within the federal corridors of justice, and entails the