Sovereignty Claims of Native Hawaiians and Native Alaskans - Research Paper Example

April 24, A case of Two Different Sovereignty Claims: Native Hawaiians and Native Alaskans Introduction Sovereignty can be defined as the authority, power, right, and legitimacy bestowed upon an individual and institution to govern. According to the concept of sovereignty, individuals within a given jurisdiction must enjoy an inherent right to self government- a right that must naturally ooze from a people who are loyal to the principles of natural law. The United States of America, a former colony of the Great Britain, follows these principles. Native Americans for thousands of years governed themselves through tribal laws, cultural traditions, religious customs, and through kinships systems such as clans and societies (Hester, 90). 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. The relationship between a Three Tier Sovereignty 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. Sovereignty Rights in Alaska 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 recognition of the tribes as having inherent sovereign powers. The sovereign assertions by the tribal nations have been met to the disadvantage of a number of concessions: land and immunity. Through federal and state relations, various federal laws define extent and immunities that the tribal nations can hold power at any given time. A number of cases lodged at the United States Supreme Court as well as the state of Alaska Supreme Court have interpreted and defined the extent of their powers and authority within their jurisdiction. Central to the idea of the sovereignty is the question of land ownership. Natives of Alaska, a land purchased by the United States from Russia on March 30, 1867 for $7.2 million have gone through a tumultuous period of political and legal up and downs before the recognition of their self-government status by the federal government. More than 90% of the land in the state is owned by the federal government and its agencies. The State of Alaska owns a significant acreage, in fact 101 acres. The native populations in the state own a paltry 44 million acres, shared by a score of native authorities. Throughout the contacts between the aboriginals of Alaska and the Europeans, the natives have hotly pursued their rights to the ownership of their lands. In history, the Tlingit, Tanaka and Haida tribes initially fought with the Russia, and vehemently object the sale of the lands to the US, claiming the rightful ownership. After the sale, they took their struggle to a different player until the recognition of their status through the Congress enacted law, the Alaska native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 (Zellen, 120). The state government of Alaska has over the years softened its stand on tribal sovereignty amongst the Alaskan tribes. In 1992, the Native Policy Statement, an instrument from the state government codified laws acknowledging the tribal authority and recognized their special status. The Alaskan tribes have tribal laws which define their own government and assign tribal authority to the councils to exercise. The relations between the Federal government and state governments on one hand and the tribal governments on the other hand is very complex, this has made the US supreme courts and the Alaska supreme court grapple with the weight, scale and scope of that sovereignty. Sovereignty Rights in Hawaii Hawaiian sovereignty efforts are dissimilar from other Native American claims as they demand total cessation from the Union and a return to the previous monarchial rule. However, there are certain actors within the native population who are pushing for self democratic government, whilst others have acknowledged the importance of the Union and are urging fellow tribes mate to stay within the Union. In the same breath as the governments of the other Native Americans, such as those in Alaska, the native populations are pushing to be including in an arrangement referred to as a nation within a nation (Trask, 66). In fact such a bill has been brought before the senate, repeatedly the Daniel Akaka (Kauanui, 173). The proposal fronted by some natives of Hawaii has been radical and extreme, perhaps unaware of the failure by the Texas state to secede from the Union. The independence of the natives land from the United States is unlikely, but the fight to gain more sovereignty is very strong within the states. The natives of Hawaii have decried their lack of legal status, unlike the other Native Americans, such as the natives of Alaska. The political situation confronting the islands that make up the state of Hawaii has been brought up before the United nations, with the later ruling that the legal status of the archipelago to be free of the United States (Pulitano,286) . In fact, several international forums designate the natives as a people under the occupation of the United States. The natives of the state are demanding full control of the islands, a stunning difference compared to the sovereign stance accepted by the other native population in the United States. Perkins (2014), presenting a theoretical outlook asserts that the Kingdom of Hawaii retains its sovereignty before the occupation by the United States, even though the monarchial government was overthrown in 1893. Amongst the hullabaloo of the pro- Kingdom factions, another faction inspired by Akaka, senator representing the state of Hawaii in the US congress are pushing for the native populations to be brought under tribal government similar to other Native Americans in the US. This the governmental faction, and they referred to as the Akaka Bill faction, and the group main focus is the native population in the island to be under the Indian Native Rights Acts. There is an obvious ideological clash between the pro-independence faction and the Akaka bill faction, and the clash is informed by perceptions on historical occurrence that formed their opinions. The pro-independence faction cites the importance of religion, culture and identity as the fundamental influence that define sovereignty. On the other hand, the Akaka Bill faction point out that the United States brought a lot of important economic and social developments to the natives and as such a tribal sovereign authority similar to other naïve in the country would ensure continuity in developments of the native populations. Conclusion Sovereignty is the total annihilation of power and does not delegate, and thus in the Alaskan Natives system, they deal with the federal government as government to government relations. The Hawaiian natives on the other hand are fighting to return their land to the former system of total government and deal with the United States just like other countries deal with the country. The pattern of sovereignty rights between the Alaskan natives and Hawaiian natives have always followed dissimilar patterns throughout the history of the country, mush similar to the locations of the two lands. The Native Hawaiians unlike the Native tribes in Alaska are not native to the Americas. This paper shall advertently explore the differences in sovereignty claims between these two different native United States native tribes. Works Cited Kauanui, J K. Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008. Print. Hester, Thurman L. Political Principles & Indian Sovereignty. London: New York, 2001. Print. Pulitano, Elvira. Indigenous Rights in the Age of the Un Declaration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print. Trask, Haunani-Kay. From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawaiʻi. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1999. Internet resource. Zellen, Barry S. Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. Print. Read More