The aim of this review is to allow for all of this by critically reviewing the article in question, including facts and arguments that are presented by the author, counter arguments from others, as well as any and all other key and related issues in this regards. This is what will be dissertated in the following.
The first thing to make note of is the actual title of this article, which is Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves; from the title alone, we are able to get a rather detailed idea of what the article itself is going to be about. The title overtly specifies the topic as well as the main idea that is going to be represented within the article, and not only does the title itself rouse interest and create a wanting to read further on, but as well it does more than merely imply the subject, as we are told directly from the title of the article alone that we are going to be learning about the individual property rights in regards to the Canadian Indian reserves. ...
Once we begin into the article, we can see that the main idea is basically stated within the first paragraph, as the first sentence of the entire article reads "Many Indian reserves in Canada, particularly but not only in the three prairie provinces, have no formalized individual property rights" (Alcantara & Flanagan, 2002: 5). Clearly, from this alone we can get at least a remote grasp on the matter of the article, as we can see that the authors are stating that most of the Indian reserves in Canada do not have any formalized individual property rights, and obviously this is - and in the future will be even more - incredibly problematic. The authors use various factual experiences and instances of different people in order to express the main point of their article, and the placement of their main idea creates much interest, because it compels you to wonder more about the individual property rights in regards to the Canadian Indian reserves, as well as the solutions - if any - which exist in this regards. One of the most poignant facts that the authors state within the first couple pages of the article is that of how "According to Joe v. Findlay (1981, 122 DLR 3d 377), interest in reserve land is held in common by the band as a whole and not by individual members (Nicola Band et al v Trans-Can Displays et al 2000 BCSC 1209, para 127). An individual can gain an interest in the land only under the procedures described in sections 20-29 of the Indian Act". (Alcantara & Flanagan, 2002: 5). Another one of the most major points that the authors make in this article is about how although the people living on the Canadian Indian reserves