The International Indigenous Policy Journal

Volume 2
Issue 2 Upcoming articles
Article 1
6-10-2011
Beyond Territory: Revisiting the Normative
Justification of Self-Government in Theory and
Practice
Janique Dubois
University of Toronto, janique.dubois@utoronto.ca
This Research is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The International Indigenous
Policy Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact nspence@uwo.ca.
Recommended Citation
Dubois, Janique (2011) "Beyond Territory: Revisiting the Normative Justification of Self-Government in Theory and Practice," The
International Indigenous Policy Journal: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 1.
Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1
Beyond Territory: Revisiting the Normative Justification of Self-
Government in Theory and Practice
Abstract
The association of sovereignty with control over territory is being challenged both internally and externally in
modern societies. Demands for political autonomy from sub-state minorities undermine the natural link
between nation, state and territory from within, while the movement of capital, goods and information across
borders contests the relationship between these concepts from without. Scholars of international relations,
law, philosophy and political science have already suggested that the sovereignty of nation-states is under
attack; however, scant attention has been paid to the way in which changes in the relation between nation,
state, and territory affect the normative weight associated with each of these concepts in discussions about
sovereignty and self-government. The objectives of this article is to examine the way in which nation, state,
sovereignty, and territory are addressed in normative justifications of indigenous self-government and to
better understand how these notions are being treated in its implementation.
Keywords
Indigenous Self-Government, Territoriality, Globalization, Urban Reserves
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 21st World Congress of Political Science in Santiago,
Chile. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as Joe Garcea for their thoughtful and
encouraging comments.
This research is available in The International Indigenous Policy Journal: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1
Insteadofbeingdividedbetweentwoordersofgovernment,governmentpowers
willhavetobedividedamongthreeorders.Thisisamajorchange,andonethat
willrequiregoodwill,flexibility,cooperation,imaginationandcourageonthe
partofallconcerned.
RoyalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(1996)

Controloveraterritoryhasbeentheorganizingprincipleparexcellenceoftheglobalordersince
thesigningoftheTreatyofWestphaliain1648.TheWestphalianvisionofsovereigntypostulatesthat
politicalpower,andbyextensionselfgovernment,isexercisedbyterritoriallydefinednationstates.The
associationofsovereigntywiththeexclusivecontroloveraterritoryisbeingchallengedbothinternallyand
externallyincontemporarysocieties.Demandsforpoliticalautonomyfromsubstateminoritiesundermine
therelationshipbetweennation,stateandterritoryfromwithin,whilethemovementofcapital,goodsand
informationacrossbordersconteststheassociationoftheseconceptsfromwithout.Scholarsof
internationalrelations,law,philosophy,geography,indigenousstudiesandpoliticalsciencehavealready
suggestedthatthesovereigntyofnationstatesisunderattack;however,scantattentionhasbeenpaidto
thewayinwhichchangesintherelationbetweennation,state,andterritoryaffectthenormativeweight
associatedwitheachoftheseconceptsindiscussionsaboutsovereigntyandselfgovernment.Thisarticle
emphasizestheimportanceofdistinguishingbetweentheseconceptstouncovertheirnormativecontent
aswellastheirappliedmeaning.
Thisarticlecontendsthat,althoughthecontroloveragiventerritorycanenhanceagroupsability
toachievepoliticalautonomy,itshouldnotbeviewedasanormativepreconditionforselfgovernment,
selfdeterminationornationhood.Tosupportthisargument,thisarticleisdividedintothreeparts.Thefirst
sectionchallengestheperceivednaturallinkbetweennation,state,sovereigntyandterritory.Thesecond
sectionrearticulatesanormativejustificationofselfgovernmentthatisnonterritorialandthusrelevant
forterritoriallydispersedindigenouspeoples.Throughanexaminationofthecreationofurbanreservesin
theCanadianprovinceofSaskatchewan,thethirdsectionillustratesthelimitsofterritoriallybased
justificationsofselfgovernmentandtherebychallengestheideathatsovereigntyiscontingentonthe
exerciseofcontroloveraterritory.Theunderlyingobjectivesofthisarticleistoexaminethewayinwhich
theconceptsofnation,state,sovereignty,andterritoryrelatetooneanotherinnormativejustificationsof
indigenousselfgovernmentandtobetterunderstandhowtheseconceptsarebeingtreatedinits
implementation.

Conceptualclarity

Intheoreticalandwellaspoliticaldiscussions,territoryisoftenportrayedasanecessarycondition
forselfgovernment,whichisoftenusedinterchangeablywithselfdeterminationandsovereignty.Oneof
Canadasforemostscholarsonminorityrights,WillKymlicka,describesselfgovernmentasdevolving
politicalpowertoapoliticalunitsubstantiallycontrolledbythemembersofthenationalminority,and
substantiallycorrespondingtotheirhistoricalhomelandorterritory(1995,p.30,myemphasis).
1
Although
selfgovernmentisoftenassociatedwithahistoricalhomelandorterritory,J.EdwardChamberlin
arguesthattheemphasisonterritoriesasspacesoverwhichtoexerciseauthorityisastubborndelusion,
partofthemistakennotionthatsovereigntyisabsoluteandalwaysterritoriallydefined(1988,p.15).
2

MostindigenouspeoplesinpresentdayCanadaarenotterritoriallybound.Morethanhalfofthis
populationlivesoutsidetheboundariesoftraditionalreservesinurbanandruralareasinterspersedwith

1
Criticsofdominantaccountstakeissuewiththenotionthatselfgovernmentisdevolved.ScholarssuchasTaiaiakeAlfred(1999),
JoyceGreen(2005),JohnBorrows(2002)arguethatindigenouspeoplesrighttoselfgovernmentcannotbedevolvedsinceitis
inherentandthusexistedpriortotheestablishmentoftheCanadianstate.
2
Ireturntotheideathatterritory,construedasaboundedplace,isprivilegedindiscussionsofselfgovernmentinPartThree.
1
Dubois: Beyond Territory
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

nonindigenouspersons.Thereareover600indigenouscommunitiesinCanada,mostofwhichoccupyonly
fragmentsoftheiroriginallandbasealongsideanevergrowingbodyofurbanindividuals(Royal
CommissiononAboriginalPeoples,1996).Giventhechangesintheterritorialorganizationofindigenous
peoples,itisincreasinglyevidentthattherealizationofindigenousselfgovernmentwilldependonthe
developmentofgovernancemodelsabletoaccommodatethechangingrealityofthesegroups.Inlightof
themodernrealitywhereindigenouspeoplesareterritoriallydispersedinurban,ruralandreserveareas
intermixedwiththenonindigenouspopulation,itisimperativetocloselyexaminethewayinwhich
territoryisusedinthenormativejustificationaswellasthepracticalimplementationofindigenous
sovereignty,selfdeterminationandselfgovernment.Below,Ipresentabriefoverviewofthewayinwhich
scholarsofglobalizationandpoliticalgeographyprovidetheconceptualspaceinwhichtorethinkthelink
betweenconceptssuchasselfgovernment,state,sovereignty,andterritory.

GlobalizationsChallengetoSelfGovernmentasTerritoriallyDefinedbyNationStates
Inageneralway,globalizationchallengestheHobbesianideathatsovereigntyisindivisible:it
underminestheassumptionthatpoliticalautonomyisachievedthrough,anddependentupon,theexercise
ofcontroloveraboundedterritory.AsSaskiaSassenargues,globalizationhasaffectedtwodistinct
featuresofthemodernstate:sovereigntyandexclusiveterritoriality(1996,p.xii).Theinternational
relationsliteraturehastraditionallylinkedstatesovereigntyinvariouswayswiththenotionofterritory.
Hobsbawmwritesthattheequationnation=state=people,andespeciallysovereignpeople,undoubtedly
linkednationtoterritory,sincethestructureanddefinitionofstateswereessentiallyterritorial(1990,p.
19).Bothinitsidealtheoreticalandrealpoliticalform,theWestphalianmodelvesteddecisionmaking
power,authority,andsovereigntyintheboundedterritoryofstates.AsAgnewwrites,

[t]hedominantWestphalianmodelofstatesovereigntyinpoliticalgeographyandinternational
relationstheory,deficientasithaslongbeenforunderstandingtherealitiesofworldpolitics,is
evenmoreinadequatetoday,notonlyforitsignoringthehierarchyofstatesandsourcesof
authorityotherthanstates,butalsobecauseofitsmistakenemphasisonthegeographical
expressionofauthority(particularlyundertheambiguoussignofsovereignty)asinvariablyand
inevitablyterritorial.(2005,p.437)

WhilemuchofinternationalrelationsscholarshipviewsthestateaswhatGiddens(1985,p.172)callsa
borderedpowercontainer,suchaviewhasbeensupplantedbymorenuancedargumentsthat
acknowledgethecomplexrelationshipbetweenstate,sovereigntyandterritory.Forinstance,Nordlinger
(1981)distinguishesbetweenstateautonomythepowertoachievegoalsandstatesovereigntythe
entitlementtoruleoveraboundedterritory.Despitethefactthatsovereigntyandautonomyareassumed
tobeembeddedwithin,andcongruentwith,theterritoriallyorganizedframeworkofliberaldemocratic
government(Held,1999,p.29),globalizationmakestheincongruenceoftheseconceptsmoreevident.
DavidHeldwritesthat,sovereigntyitselfhastobeconceivedtodayasalreadydividedandlimitedbythe
verynatureofthisplurality(1991,p.222).
Althoughglobalizationmakesapparentthatstateandterritoryarenotsynonymous,StuartHall
remarksthatterritorymattersforthedefinitionofsovereignty,partlybecausethesenseofbelonging
sentimentsofloyaltyareimportantconstituentsofbeingmembersofastate;butmainlybecauseofthe
needtoestablishtheboundariestopowerandlegalrule(1984,p.18).Assuch,itisimportantto
acknowledgetheroleterritoryplaysinsecuringsovereigntywithouttakingtheseconceptstomean
somethingidentical.Inwhathecallstheterritorialconundrum,MichaelKeatingdistinguishesbetween
territoryssymbolicimportanceastheactuallocationofagroupanditsfunctionalimportanceasthespace
overwhichthepracticalexerciseofselfdeterminationtakesplace(2003,pp.1516).Territorysroleas
2
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [2011], Art. 1
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1

representativeofasymbolicpieceofalargernarrativeaboutthecollectiveidentityofagroupshouldbe
distinguishedfromitsfunctionalroles,whichmayinvolveenhancingeconomicselfsufficiency.
3
Givenits
varioususesandapplications,itisimportanttoarticulatethewayinwhichterritorymattersfor
sovereignty,selfgovernmentandselfdetermination.Ithereforeturntoscholarsofpoliticalgeographyto
clarifyhowterritoryrelatestosovereigntyandtobetterunderstandtherelationshipbetweenterritoryand
selfgovernment.

GeographysChallengetoSelfGovernmentasTerritorialSovereignty
Territoryisoftenassociatedorconfoundedwiththecolonialideasofproperty,boundaryand
jurisdiction(Buchanan,2003,p.239).DavidDelaneyleadsthechargeofpoliticalgeographersinarguing
thatterritorydoesnotsimplyrefertonationalbordersorlinesonamap.Rather,itexpressesarelationship
betweenland,peopleandidentity:arelationshipbestdescribedasterritoriality(2005,p.4).Territorialityis
characterizedasaprocessthroughwhichplacesarecreatedtosatisfyboththematerialrequirementsof
lifeandtheemotionalrequirementsofbelongingofplacingoneselfbothintimeandspace(Penrose,
2002,p.282).Arelationalunderstandingofterritorytakesintoaccountthesymbolicaswellasthe
functionalrolesgeographicalareasencompass.Thepracticesandprocessesofterritorialitythusgivelifeto
territoryandmeaningtoitsboundaries(Delaney,2005,p.27).
Giventhatmanyindigenouspeoplesconsiderlandandtheresourcesitholdstobepartofa
complexwebofinterrelatedspiritualandnaturalrelationships(Hendrix,2005,p.769),itisappropriateto
considerDelaneysargumentthatterritorialityentailslookingbeyondthephysicalmanifestationofplace
anduncoveringthequestionsofpowerandmeaning,ideologyandlegitimacy,authorityandobligation,
andhowworldsofexperiencearecontinuallymadeandremade(2005,p.18).Territorialitytakesinto
accountthemeaningsembodiedinthecontradictionsandrelationshipscontinuallybeingconstructed
betweenpeople,placeandidentity,whereasterritory,usedtodesignatejurisdictionoveraspecific
geographicalarea,obscuresthesignificanceoftheseinteractions.Tomoreadequatelyaccountforthe
relationshipbetweenageographicalspaceandpoliticalautonomy,arelationalunderstandingofterritoryis
requiredindiscussionsaboutselfgovernment.
Focusingonthefunctionalroleofterritoryandignoringitssymbolicmeaningsraisesparticular
problemsindiscussionsaboutselfgovernmentinCanadawhereindigenousgroupsdonotnecessarily
resideonanexclusiveterritoryanddonotallidentifywithagivenphysicalplace.Morethanhalfof
Canadasselfidentifiedindigenouspopulationresidesinurbanareaswhereasapproximatelythirtypercent
liveonterritoriallyconcentratedreserves.Indigenouspeoplesareawarethattheirclaimtoself
determinationisincompatiblewiththeconceptofstatesovereignty.TaiaiakeAlfredcontendsthat,rather
thanconceivingofsovereigntyintermsofinterestsandboundaries,indigenouspeoplesconsideritinterms
oflandrelationshipsandspirituality(1995,p.250).Althoughitisofteneasiertopremisetheargumentfor
selfdeterminationonaclaimtocontrolaspecificterritory,indigenouspeoplesclaimtoselfgovernment
shouldnotbemistakenasnecessarilybeingaclaimforexclusivesovereigntyorstatehood.Thefollowing
sectionexaminesmorecloselythewayinwhichtheseconceptscometogetherinnormativejustificationsof
indigenousselfgovernment.

RearticulatingtheNormativeJustificationforIndigenousAutonomy

Bychallengingtheassumptionthatsovereigntyisexclusivelyexercisedbynationstatesovera
giventerritoryandbyunderminingtheideathatselfgovernmentisterritoriallybound,theliteratureon

3
Foradiscussionofterritorysfunctionalroles,seesectionthreeofthisarticle.
3
Dubois: Beyond Territory
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

globalizationandpoliticalgeographyprovidetheconceptualspaceinwhichtorethinktheconnection
betweenstate,nation,sovereignty,andterritory.RelyingonindigenousnationalistdiscourseinCanada,
thissectionsketchesanoutlineforajustificationofindigenousselfdeterminationthatdoesnotrelyona
claimtotheexclusivecontrolofaterritory.Bytakingintoconsiderationthenormativecontentassociated
withconceptsliketerritory,thisdiscussionsetsthestageforarearticulationofthejustificationofself
governmentthathasrelevanceforindigenousminoritieswhodonotresideonawelldefinedorcontiguous
territory.

DeterritorializedIndigenousNationhoodinCanada

Indigenousnationalistdiscourseresurgedinthe1970sasaresponsetoassimilativestatepolicies
suchasthe1969WhitePaper.InreactiontodecadesofpublicneglectandpoliticalexclusioninCanada,
indigenouspeoplesformulatedaclaimtoselfdeterminationthatwasconsistentwiththedominant
narrativeofnationhoodthatcharacterizedtheCanadianpoliticalsceneatthetime(foradiscussion,see
AndersenandDenis,2003,p.376).Adoptingthediscourseofnationhoodnotonlyallowedindigenous
peoplestoshapeacommonpoliticalproject,butitalsoenabledthemtocometogetherbeyondthe
traditionalboundariesoftheircommunitiesbyhavingsmallandalienatedgroupsparticipateinashared
politicalendeavour.
Inasense,indigenousnationalismwasevokedtoevademarginalizationaswellastoovercomethe
divisiverealitiesofsecludedindigenouscommunitieswithlimitedgoverningcapacities.Atitscore,the
discourseofnationhoodbroughtindigenouspeoplestogetheraboveandbeyonddispersedand
isolatedterritorialcommunities.Thetrendtoabandonconfiningcharacterizationsofnationhoodby
challengingdefinitionsthatprivilegeterritoryasaphysicalplaceistakenupbyBenedictAndersonwho
presentsnationsasimaginedcommunities.Nationsareimaginedinthatmembersconceiveofa
comradeshipanddevelopasenseofcommunalselfawarenesseventhoughtheywillneverknowmostof
theirfellowmembers(2003,p.6).FollowingAnderson,RossPoolecontendsthatwhenpeopleenvision
themselvesasbelongingtoaparticularcommunitythatinfluencestheirlifestyleandchoices,they
consequentlyformanation(1999,p.6).Manycontemporarytheoristsofnationhoodarguethat,regardless
oftheirethnicmakeuportheirterritorialandspatialorganization,indigenouspeoplesconstitutenations
insofarastheyrepresentacommunitywithanaspirationtobepoliticallyselfdetermining(Guibernau,
1999,p.16;Miller,1995,p.19).Hence,theaspirationforsomeformofpoliticalsovereigntyembodiedin
thesharedpoliticalselfconsciousnessofagroupiskeytoaclaimtonationhoodthroughwhichindigenous
peoplesarticulatetheirclaimtoselfdetermination.
Theargumentthusfarsuggeststhatalthoughterritorycancontributetothesenseofcommunity
individualsfeelandimagineaspartofanation,nationhooddoesnotdependonanyphysicalplacesince
theattachmentpeoplehavetoacommunityisconstructed.Hence,territoryssymbolicelementconstitutes
thecoreofajustificationtonationalselfdetermination.Toclarifywhatthisargumententailsinpractice,
wecanconsidertherealityofFirstNationsbandsintheCanadianprovinceofSaskatchewanwhere
membershipisnotnecessarilydeterminedbyresidenceorpresenceonagiventerritory.AmongCowessess
FirstNations3526members,only712liveonreserve;CarrytheKettleFirstNationhas2387membersof
which850liveonreserve;andonly1100ofthe3106GeorgeGordonFirstNationmembersliveonreserve
(StarPhoenix,2009).Eventhoughsomemembersofthesecommunitiesliveonreservewhileothersare
dispersedinurbanareasorinnonreserveruralregions,theirclaimtoselfdeterminationandthusto
nationhoodisnotdiminishedbythefactthattheydonotallliveonthesameterritory.
Likewise,theemergingtrendinanumberofCanadiancitiestoexpandtheterritoryoccupiedby
indigenouspeoplesthroughthecreationurbanreservesdoesnotnecessarilyaffecttheirclaimtoself
determination.Itisnotthereserve,asaplace,thatcharacterizesthenation,butrathertheirsenseof
belongingtowardsthelandaswellastowardsthemembersofagroupwhoarebothonandoffthe
reserve,thatcharacterizesthemasanationandthatlegitimizestheirclaimtoselfdetermination.Thus,
4
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [2011], Art. 1
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1

belongingtoacommunitywhichislocatedinaspecificplaceisimportanttonationhoodonlyinsofarasthat
specificplacemaycontributetoindividualssenseofbelongingtoasharedcommunity:whetherindigenous
peoplesresideontheirtraditionalhomelandorinurbanareasdoesnottakeawaytheircapacitytobepart
ofanationinsofarasthenationreliesonapoliticalselfconsciousnessandisinasenseimagined.
Althoughterritorymayalsoplayafunctionalroleinrelationtoselfdeterminationaswillbediscussedin
sectionthree,itisimperativetoacknowledgethatitssymbolicqualitiescanformthebasisofanormative
justificationtoselfdeterminationandhencetonationhood.

NonTerritorialSelfGovernment

Recognizingthatnationhoodandindigeneitytranscendterritorialboundariesrequiresthat
contemporarypoliticsdistinguishselfgovernment,selfdetermination,andsovereigntyfromthecontrol
overaterritoryandacknowledgetherelationalcharacterofidentity,placeandpeople.Indigenous
sovereigntyisnotcontingentonthecontrolofaterritorynoristhecontroloveraterritorythesole
expressionofindigenousselfgovernment.Sovereignty,forindigenouspeoples,referstotheirabilityto
determinetheirfuturesaccordingtotheirculturalvalues(Alfred,1999,p.47).Similarly,theprimary
justificationforselfgovernmentisnottoexercisesovereigntyoveraterritory,buttogiveindigenous
peoplesthecapacitytodefineandredefinetheirgoalsandprojectsinsuchawaythattheirculturaland
politicalvocabularyalignwiththeiraspirationasanimaginedcommunity.Ratherthanreferringtoa
specificterritory,asinglegrouporahomogenousculturalidentity,indigenoussovereigntyreferstothe
relationshipsthatexistbetweenpersons,identitiesandplaces;throughselfdeterminationandself
government,indigenouspeoplesgivemeaningtotheserelationships.
InviewoftheexistenceofindigenousnationsinCanada,theCanadianstatecannotaccurately
describeitselfasanationstatebut,asPhilipResnickargues,shouldinsteadrefertoitselfasamultination
state.Likewise,indigenousgroupsconsequentlyformwhathasbeencallednationswithin(Flerasand
Elliott,1992).Despitethefactthatindigenouspeoplesdonotpossess,nordotheynecessarilyseekto
possess,astateoftheirown,theyneverthelessconstitutenationsthataimtobeselfgoverning.Inthe
samesensethatindigenousgroupsarenotrequiredtogovernastatetoconstitutenations,theyarenot
requiredtooccupyaspecificterritorytohaveaclaimtoselfdetermination,nationhoodorself
government.Althoughthesmallsizeofindigenouscommunitiesandtheirterritorialisolationraise
legitimateconcernswithregardtothefeasibilityandpracticalityofselfgovernment,theydonot,however,
diminishthevalueofindigenouspeoplesnormativeclaimtonationhood,selfdeterminationandhence,to
selfgovernment.

NonTerritorialSelfGovernmentinPractice

Animportantquestionisnonethelessraisedregardinghowindigenouspeoplescanbeself
governingwithouttheexclusivecontroloveraterritory.AsPetersargues,space,place,andterritoryhave
anumberofimportantimplicationsforthelives,lands,andculturesofAboriginalPeoplesthathavenot
beencarefullyconsidered(1994,p.163).Giventhedominanceofgeographyinthepoliticalorganizationof
governancestructures,howcanindigenouspeoplesovercomethispragmaticobstacleandbecome
sovereign,selfgoverningnations?Partoftheanswertothischallengerequiresthecreationofinstitutional
designsthatcanaccommodateindigenouspeopleswhoareterritoriallydispersed.
4
AsMichaelMurphy
writes,
[r]elationalselfdeterminationencompassesasphereofautonomyforselfdetermininggroups,

4
Itisimportanttonotethatselfgovernmentcantakedifferentformsandentailsvarioustypesofstructuresandpowersforeach
community.VariousmodelsofselfgovernmenthavebeenproposedbyWeinstein(1986),Tizya(1992),Dunn(1985),Groves(1991),
andcontributorsinPeters(1995)andGarceaandBarron,(1999).
5
Dubois: Beyond Territory
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

butalsorecognizesthatrelationsofcomplexinterdependenceplacebothpracticalandethical
limitationstoautonomy,creatingtheneedforsharedorcooperativeformsofgovernanceto
managethisinterdependenceinamannerwhichisbotheffectiveanddemocratic.(2005,p.10)
LookingatcurrentCanadianinitiativesinurbansettings,thissectionillustratesthelimitsofterritorially
basedunderstandingsofselfgovernmentandhighlightsthepossibilitiesfornonterritorialself
government.

UrbanReserves
AlthoughtheCanadianParliamentholdsexclusivelegislativeauthorityoverIndiansandLands
reservedforIndiansaccordingtosubsection91(24)oftheConstitutionAct,1867,negotiationsforthe
expansionandadditionofreservelandsareputtinginquestionthesovereigntyofParliamentover
indigenouslandsandwaysoflife.TheCanadiangovernmentadoptedanAdditionstoReserves(ATR)policy
toallowfortheexpansionofexistingreservesaswellastheestablishmentofnewreserves.Theadoption
ofthispolicyislargelyaresultoftheacknowledgementthatmanyindigenousbandshavenotreceivedthe
acreagetowhichtheyareentitledaccordingtothetreatiessignedbetween1874and1906(Sullyand
Emmons,2004,p.4).TheadditionorexpansionofreservesisnegotiatedthroughTreatyLandEntitlement
FrameworkAgreements(TLEFA)whichareprovincialprotocolsdevelopedbyfederal,provincialand
indigenousgovernmentsthroughwhichlanddebtsowedtoindigenouspeoplesaresettled(seeMartin
McGuire,1999).
In1992,theSaskatchewanTLEFAwasreachedthroughnegotiationsbetweenfederaland
provincialgovernmentsand25bands,with4additionalbandssigninglater(SullyandEmmons2004,p.4).
SaskatchewanisoneoftherareplaceswherethedevelopmentofFirstNationsreserveshashappenedin
anurbansetting(SCC,2008).AsGarceaandBarronwrite,urbanreservesinSaskatchewanarenotmere
imitationsofwhatcanbefoundelsewhere,butratherareuniqueinventions,peculiartotheprovince
(1999,p.10).Urbanreserveselsewheregenerallyresultfromurbansprawlorthemunicipalannexationof
landssurroundingalreadyexistingreserves.However,Saskatchewanhaswitnessedthecreationofnew
urbanreservesaspartofaconsciousstrategybyindigenousgroupstopurchaselandsinurbanareasto
convertthemintonewreserves.Garceawritesthat,
[u]nlikereservesofearliertimes,whichwerecreatedlargelyatthebehestoffederalgovernment
officialstosegregate,isolate,marginalize,andsubordinateAboriginalcommunitiesandto
circumscribethelandholdingsandmobilityoftheirmembers,thenewsatellitereservesarebeing
createdattherequestofFirstNationsleaderswhoseethemasameanstoadvancetheir
economic,social,cultural,andpoliticaldevelopmentobjectives.(2008,p.287)
Ofthe33newurbanreservescreatedintheprovince,9areincities.In1988,Saskatoonbecamethefirst
cityinCanadatoestablishanurbanreserve,MuskegLakeCreeNation.
TheCityofSaskatoon,affirmsthat[i]nadditiontofulfillingoriginaltreatycommitments,TLE
agreementshavealreadyledtogreatereconomicandsocialindependenceandselfsufficiencyfor
SaskatchewanFirstNations.Itisalsoprovidingeconomicdevelopmentopportunitiesforallpeopleofthe
Cityandprovince(SCC,2008).Economicselfsufficiencyisalargecomponentoftherationalebehind
establishingurbanreservesthoughtheideathaturbanreservesarethebestwaytoachieveeconomicself
sufficiencyiscontested(seeGarceaandBarron,1999,pp.2231andPeters,2007).
5
Thesuccessofthe
MuskegLakeCreeNationurbanreserveliesinitsabilitytofindnewstrategiesforeconomicdevelopment

5
AreportentitledTheUrbanReservesinSaskatchewan,(2005)preparedfortheWesternEconomicDiversificationCanada,states
thatthemajorquestionofwhetherurbanreservesarethebesttoolforassistingFirstNationsinachievingeconomicindependence
stillremainstobeanswered.Althoughthereareargumentstosupportthenotionthattheestablishmentofurbanreserveshelpto
achievethisgoal,furtherresearchisstillrequiredtodetermineaconclusiveresponsetoallofthesequestions.Retrievedon
November29,2010fromhttp://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/10948.asp.
6
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [2011], Art. 1
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1

outsidetheconfinesofthetraditionalreserve.
Thecreationofurbanreserves,thoughundertheorizedandsubjectoffewscholarlyinvestigations,
areapotentialsiteforworkingthroughtherelationshipbetweennation,sovereigntyandterritory.Insofar
assovereigntyisexercisedbeyondthesettraditionalboundariesofindigenouscommunities,urban
reservesprovideawayofreimaginingnationhoodbeyondthetraditionalconfinesofterritorialreserves.
Ofcourse,territoryremainspresentinthedevelopmentofurbangovernance.However,incontrasttothe
mostcommonexamplesofselfgovernment,territoryinthiscaseisseenasanextensionof,ratherthana
preconditionto,selfgovernmentinsofarasalreadygoverningindigenousgroupsaremakingaclaimfor
territoriesinurbansettings.Inotherwords,urbanterritoriesareseenasanextensionofthesovereigntyof
indigenouspeoplesinSaskatchewan,notapreconditiontotheirsovereignty.
Urbanreservesenhancetheviabilityofselfgovernmentbyprovidingeconomicrevenuesfor
indigenousgroups(Peters,2007).Hence,territoryplaysanimportantroleinthatitactsasthespacewhere
indigenouscommunitiesdevelopeconomicstrategiesforgreaterselfdetermination.Whileeconomicself
sufficiencyisintegraltoselfgovernment,itisimportanttosignalthatselfgovernmentextendsbeyond
economics.GarceaandBarroncapturethepotentialdifficultyofurbanreservesastoolsforeconomic
sufficiencywhentheywritethat,
[i]ntheory,urbanreservescanbecreatedforanypurposebandsdeemappropriate,subjectto
federalapproval.Butforthemostpart,theurbanreservescreatedinmajorurbancentresinthe
centralandsouthernpartsofSaskatchewanhavebeendesignedforcommercialandinstitutional
purposes.(1999,p.5)
Asindigenouspeoplespursuetheirselfgovernmentgoalsinurbanareas,itisimportanttotakeinto
considerationthepotentialdangerofreducingselfgovernmenttoeconomicselfsufficiency.
AnotherdangeriswhatKeatingreferstoasreterritorialization.Atthesametimethatindigenous
nationsareredefiningtherelationshipbetweennationhoodandterritory,Keatingarguesthatcontrolover
aterritoryhasbecomemoreratherthanlessimportant(2001:2628).Heattributesthetendencytowards
reterritorializationtoterritorysfunctional,political,andnormativeroles.Astheprimaryunitofeconomic
development,territoryremainsthepoliticalbasisforgovernanceandcountergovernanceinstitutionsin
theabsenceofnonterritorialgovernancebodies.Itispreciselybecauseofthistendencytoreterritorialize
selfgovernmentthatitisimportanttodistinguishtheroleterritoryplaysinthejustificationofself
governmentfromtheroleitoccupiesinitsrealization.Payingexcessiveanddisproportionateattentionto
territorysfunctionalattributesleadstotheneglectofitssymbolicroletherebymarginalizingmany
indigenousgroupswhoarenotterritoriallyconcentratedfrommakingclaimstoselfdeterminationorself
government.Althoughterritorytakesonakeyroleinselfgovernmentinpracticeparticularlybyproviding
commercialandinstitutionalopportunitiesforcommunitiesitiscrucialthatterritorydoesnotbecomea
preconditionforselfgovernment.Suchaconditionwouldrenderitdifficult,ifnotimpossible,tohonourthe
righttoselfgovernmentformanyurbanizedindigenouspeopleswhomayproposenewandcreative
modelsofnonterritorialgovernance.Theimportanceofproperlyidentifyingthenormativeroleofterritory
inthejustificationandtheimplementationofselfgovernmentthusbecomesevident.
Inadditiontoofferingauniquemodelofgovernancethatextendsbeyondtheboundariesof
traditionalreserves,thecreationofurbanreservesalsoconstitutesanexampleofsharedgovernance.The
successofurbanreservesdependsonsharedrule.Stakeholdersintheestablishmentofurbanreserves
includemembersofindigenousbands,bandcouncils,tribalcouncils,municipal,provincialandfederal
governments,localgovernancebodies,aswellasthegeneralpublic.Allofthesegroupsplayaroleinthe
successfulnegotiationofTLEFAs.Initsveryformulation,theSaskatchewanTLEFAoutlinesthevarious
actorsthatmaybeinvolvedintheprocess.Forinstance,section9speaksofreconcilingthedifferentlegal
environmentsgoverningreserveandnonreserveproperty.Thisentailsthatschooldivisionsmustbe
consultediftheyareaffectedbytheestablishmentofurbanreserves(SaskatchewanTLEFA,9.01).
6

6
Toavoidapartyexercisingvetopoweroverthecreationofanurbanreserve,thereareprotectionstoensurethatifnoagreementis
reachedbetweenthebandandapartywithinfivemonths,andthisdisagreementisduetothepartysunwillingnesstonegotiatein
7
Dubois: Beyond Territory
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Furthermore,allconcernedpartiesmustreenternegotiationsingoodfaithuponthe14
th
yearafterthe
executiondatetoensurethecontinuanceofagreements,eitherintheirexistingormodifiedform,between
parties.
7

Insofarasurbanreservesdependonthesuccessfulnegotiationwithvariousrepresentatives,
governmentsandindividuals,theydenoteaninterestingexampleofthewayinwhichselfgovernmentis
achievednotthroughnegotiationswiththetraditionalsovereigngovernmentstheusualprovincialand
federalgovernmentsbutthroughdiscussionandcollaborationwithallaffectedpartieswhethertheybe
municipalgovernments,schoolboardsorindividualcitizens.Asdecisionmakingpowerisdividedamong
variousactorsinaglobalizedworld,thecollaborationofallstakeholdersiscrucial.Inacknowledgingthe
interdependentrelationshipbetweenvariousactors,thecreationofurbanreservesinSaskatchewan
confirmtheneedtofurtherreflectonnonterritorialmodelsofselfgovernment.

Conclusion

Thisarticlehasarguedthatterritory,althoughimportanttoenhancetheselfsufficiencyof
indigenousgroups,isnotandshouldnotbeconceivedofasapreconditionforselfgovernment,self
determinationornationhood.AsdemonstratedthroughtheSaskatchewanexperience,distinguishing
betweenthesevariousconceptsanduncoveringtherelationshipbetweenthemisofcrucialimportance.
Suchconceptualprecisionisofgreatconsequenceinarticulatingaclaimforindigenousselfgovernment
insofarasmodelsofselfgovernmentareaproductoftheirnormativejustifications.Inarguingthatterritory
isnotapreconditionforselfdeterminationandforselfgovernment,theintentionofthisarticleisto
generateinterestintheroleterritoryplaysinpractice.Asindigenouspeoplesbecomeincreasingly
urbanizedandterritoriallydispersed,itisimperativetodevelopnewmodelsofselfgovernmentrelevantto
therealitiesofthesegroups.Reimaginingtheshapeofindigenousselfgovernmentrequiresthinkingabout
howconceptsaretreated,whatnormativeforcetheybringandhowtheirappliedmeaningconcordswith
theirnormativeintent.

goodfaith,theGovernmentofCanadacansetasideland,andanyoutstandingclaimscanbeaddressedbytheArbitrationBoardof
Canada,SaskatchewanortheBandinquestion.
7
Thesameprovisionsasoutlinedinthepreviousfootnoteapplyhere.
8
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [2011], Art. 1
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1

References

Alfred,Taiaiake.(1995).HeedingtheVoicesofourAncestors:KahnawakeMohawkPoliticsandtheRiseofNative
Nationalism.DonMills:OxfordUniversityPress.
.(1999).Peace,PowerandRighteousness:AnIndigenousManifesto.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Agnew,John.(2005).SovereigntyRegimes.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers95(2),pp.437461.
Andersen,Chris,andClaudeDenis.(2003).UrbanNativesandtheNation:BeforeandAftertheRoyalCommissionon
AboriginalPeoples.CanadianReviewofSociologyandAnthropology,40(4),pp.37491.
Anderson,Benedict.(2003).ImaginedCommunities.NewYork:Verso.
Barron,F.LaurieandJosephGarcea.(1999).UrbanIndianReserves:ForgingNewRelationshipsinSaskatchewan.
Saskatoon,SK:PurichPublishing.
Borrows,John.(2002).RecoveringCanada:TheResurgenceofIndigenousLaw.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Buchanan,Allen.(2003).TheMakingandUnmakingofBoundaries:WhatLiberalismHastoSay.InM.MooreandA.
Buchanan(Eds.),States,Nations,andBorders:theEthicsofMakingBoundaries,pp.23161.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chamberlin,J.Edward.(1988).AboriginalRightsandtheMeechLackAccord.InK.E.SwintonandC.J.Rogerson
(Eds.),CompetingConstitutionalVisions:TheMeechLakeAccord,pp.1120.Toronto:CarswellLegal
Publications.
Delaney,David.(2005).Territory:AShortIntroduction.Malden:Blackwell.
Fleras,AugieandJohnL.Elliott.(1992).TheNationWithin:AboriginalStateRelationsinCanada,theUnitedStates,and
NewZealand.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Garcea,Joseph.(2008).FirstNationsSatelliteReserves:CapacityBuildingandSelfGovernmentinSaskatchewan.InY.
D.Belanger(Ed.),AboriginalSelfGovernmentinCanada:CurrentTrendsandIssues,3
rd
ed.,pp.24059.
Saskatoon:PurichPublishing.
Giddens,Anthony.(1985).TheNationStateandViolence.VolumeTwoofaContemporary
Green,Joyce.(2005)SelfDetermination,Citizenship,andFederalism:IndigenousandCanadianPalimpsest.InM.
Murphy(Ed.),Canada:TheStateoftheFederation2003:ReconfiguringAboriginalStateRelations,pp.229
354.Kingston:McGillQueensUniversityPress.
Groves,Robert.(1991).TerritorialityandAboriginalSelfDetermination:OptionsforLegalPluralisminCanada.
CommissionofFolkLawandLegalPluralism,proceedingsoftheVIthInternationalSymposiumonFolkLaw
andLegalPluralism.Ottawa:IndianAffairsBranch.
Guibernau,Montserrat.(1999).NationsWithoutStates.Oxford:PolityPress.
Hall,Stuart.(1984).TheStateinQuestion.InG.McLennan,D.Held,andS.Hall,(Eds.),TheIdeaoftheModernState,
pp.22345.Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress.
Held,David(Ed.).(1991).PoliticalTheoryToday.Cambridge:PolityPress.
.(1995).DemocracyandtheGlobalOrder:FromtheModernStatetoCosmopolitanGovernance.Cambridge:
PolityPress.
,withA.McGrew.(1998).TheEndoftheOldOrder?ReviewofInternationalStudies,24,pp.21945.
Hendrix,BurkeA.(2005).MemoryinNativeAmericanLandClaims:Identity,PastInjusticeandRedress.Political
Theory,33(6),pp.76385.
Hobsbawm,EricJ.(1990).NationsandNationalismSince1780.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Keating,Michael.(2001).NationsWithoutStates:TheAccommodationofNationalismintheNewStateOrder.InM.
KeatingandJ.McGarry(Eds.),MinorityNationalismandtheChangingInternationalOrder.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,pp.1943.
9
Dubois: Beyond Territory
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Keohane,RobertO.(1995).HobbesDilemmaandInstitutionalChangeinWorldPolitics:SovereigntyinInternational
Society.InH.H.HolmandG.Sorensen(Eds.),WhoseWorldOrder?Boulder:WestviewPress,pp.16586.
Kraser,StephenD.(2001).Sovereignty.ForeignPolicy,122,pp.2029.
Kymlicka,Will.(1995).MulticulturalCitizenship:ATheoryofMinorityRights.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
LittleBear,Leroy.(2004).AboriginalParadigms:ImplicationsforRelationshipstoLandandTreatyMaking.InK.
Wilkins(Ed.),AdvancingAboriginalClaims:Visions/Strategies/Directions.Saskatoon:PurichPublishingLtd.
MartinMcGuire,Peggy.(1999).TreatyLandEntitlementinSaskatchewan:AContextoftheCreationofUrban
Reserves.InF.L.BarronandJ.Garcea(Eds.),UrbanIndianReserves:ForgingNewRelationshipsin
Saskatchewan,pp.5377.Saskatoon,SK:PurichPublishing.
Miller,David.(1995).OnNationality.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Murphy,Michael.(2005).RelationalSelfDeterminationandFederalReform.InM.Murphy(Ed.),Canada:theStateof
theFederation2003:ReconfiguringAboriginalStateRelations,pp.335.Montreal:McGillQueensUniversity
Press.
Nordlinger,EricA.(1981).OntheAutonomyoftheDemocraticState.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Penrose,Jan.(2002).Nations,StatesandHomelands:TerritoryandTerritorialityinNationalistThought.Nationsand
Nationalism.8(3),pp.27797.
Peters,EvelynJ.(2007).UrbanReserves.ResearchPaperfortheNationalCentreforfirstNationsGovernance.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.fngovernance.org/research/index.htm
.(2005).GeographiesofUrbanAboriginalPeopleinCanada.InM.Murphy(Ed.),Canada:TheStateofthe
FederationReconfiguringAboriginalStateRelations,pp.3976.Kingston:McGillQueensUniversityPress.
.(1994).TheGeographiesofAboriginalSelfGovernment.InJohnH.Hylton(Ed.),AboriginalSelfGovernment:
CurrentTrendsandIssues.Saskatoon:PurichPublishing.
Poole,Ross.(1999).NationandIdentity.NewYork:Routledge.
Resnick,Philip.(1994).TowardaMultinationFederalism.InLeslieSeidle(Ed.),SeekingaNewCanadianPartnership:
AsymmetricalandConfederalOptions,pp.7190.Montreal:InstituteforResearchinPublicPolicy.
RoyalCommissiononAboriginalPeoples.(1996).PeopletoPeople,NationtoNation.Ottawa:MinisterofSupplyand
ServicesCanada.
SaskatchewanChamberofCommerce(SCC).(June2008).BackgroundPaperUrbanReserves.Retrievedfrom
http://tvontario01.snjsca01.jolokianet.net
Sassen,Saskia.(1996).LosingControl?SovereigntyinanAgeofGlobalization.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
StarPhoenix,Saskatoon.(February2009).Specialinsert.
Sully,LorneA.andMarkD.Emmons,2004.UrbanReserves:TheCityofSaskatoonsPartnershipwithFirstNations.
PaperpresentedataconferenceinCalgarybythePacificBusiness&LawInstitute,April22,2004.
WesternEconomicDiversificationCanada.TheUrbanReservesinSaskatchewan.Retrievedfrom
http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/10948.asp

10
The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 2 [2011], Art. 1
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss2/1