scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Redressing Historic Injustice

24 Jan 2002-University of Toronto Law Journal (JSTOR)-Vol. 52, Iss: 1, pp 135
About: This article is published in University of Toronto Law Journal.The article was published on 2002-01-24. It has received 90 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Injustice.
Citations
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The authors examines the political uses of official apologies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States and explores why minority groups demand such apologies and why governments do or do not offer them.
Abstract: Intense interest in past injustice lies at the centre of contemporary world politics. Most scholarly and public attention has focused on truth commissions, trials, lustration, and other related decisions, following political transitions. This book examines the political uses of official apologies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. It explores why minority groups demand such apologies and why governments do or do not offer them. Nobles argues that apologies can help to alter the terms and meanings of national membership. Minority groups demand apologies in order to focus attention on historical injustices. Similarly, state actors support apologies for ideological and moral reasons, driven by their support of group rights, responsiveness to group demands, and belief that acknowledgment is due. Apologies, as employed by political actors, play an important, if underappreciated, role in bringing certain views about history and moral obligation to bear in public life.

188 citations

Book
24 Feb 2005
TL;DR: A history of aboriginal self-determination and self-recognition is described in this article, where the legal recognition of the individual and the group is discussed. But it is not discussed in detail.
Abstract: 1. Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: The juridical status of non-Christian polities (to the end of the eighteenth century) Chapter Three: Aboriginal sovereignty and status in the 'Empire(s) of Uniformity' Chapter Four: A history of aboriginal status - the legal recognition of the individual and the group Chapter 5: aboriginal societies and international law: a history of sovereignty, status and land Chapter 6: An overview of the era of aboriginal self-determination Chapter 7: Achieving recognition during the 1970s and '80s- foundations for a modern jurisprudence Chapter 8: Moving beyond recognition: aboriginal governance in the turbulent 1990s Chapter 9: Living Together Less Contentiously: the Jurisprucence of Reconciliation in the 1990s

83 citations


Cites background from "Redressing Historic Injustice"

  • ...There was no hand-wringing (at least until the penny dropped by Jeremy Bentham eventually clinked to ground) about the ‘role’ of natural law....

    [...]

  • ...In bowing to the acceptance that retention of full cultural choice required adoption of rights-talk, aboriginal people not only demonstrated grasp of the Darwinian reality but confirmed the ongoing inescapable experience of the Introduction 57 148 Jeremy Waldron, ‘Minority Cultures’, in W Kymlicka (ed), The Rights of Minority Cultures (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) 93, 109....

    [...]

  • ...Practical help in the form of hospitality during research expeditions came from Bill Hastings and Jeremy Baker, Professor Jamie Hart and professor Leland Burns (and Shinji), Derek Drummie and Rory Morrison-Smith, Josephine Barnao McHugh, Guy Lawson and Maya Kaimal, Peter Adam and Facundo Bo, Nina and Paul Barnao, Patrick and Nicky McHugh (and family), John and Jenny McHugh (and family), Jody and Andy Scott (and family), Max Cryer (whose etymological skills and wit are unsurpassed), Jane Wrightson, and Bruce Young....

    [...]

  • ...The legal systems frequently separated these demands, Introduction10 13 Jeremy Waldron, ‘Redressing Historic Injustice’ (2002) 52 University of Toronto LJ 134 and ‘Indigeneity: First Peoples and Last Occupancy’ (2003) 1 New Zealand J of Public and Intl L 55. addressing historical claims in a manner and through mechanisms separate from contemporary claims....

    [...]

  • ...13 Jeremy Waldron, ‘Redressing Historic Injustice’ (2002) 52 University of Toronto LJ 134 and ‘Indigeneity: First Peoples and Last Occupancy’ (2003) 1 New Zealand J of Public and Intl L 55....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a permissive theory of territorial rights, arguing that the citizens of each state are entitled to the particular territory they collectively occupy, if and only if they are also politically committed to the establishment of a global political authority realizing just reciprocal relations.
Abstract: This article explores the justification of states' territorial rights. It starts by introducing three questions that all current theories of territorial rights attempt to answer: how to justify the right to settle, the right to exclude, and the right to settle and exclude with reference to a particular territory. It proposes a ‘permissive’ theory of territorial rights, arguing that the citizens of each state are entitled to the particular territory they collectively occupy, if and only if they are also politically committed to the establishment of a global political authority realizing just reciprocal relations. The article is developed by introducing some key features of the permissive theory and by explaining how such an account addresses the questions of settlement, exclusion and particularity in ways that significantly improve on existing rival accounts (most prominently: acquisition theories, legitimacy-based theories and nationalist theories).

53 citations

Dissertation
19 May 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors put forward a theory of reparations in the domestic liberal democratic context, grounded in a variety of real world cases, that suggests that governments owe reparations to African Americans in a much wider range of situations than is usually recognized.
Abstract: In the United States, many associate the idea of reparations with the longstanding African American claim of being owed redress for slavery and Jim Crow. Many defend the black reparations claim based on the exceptional nature of the hardships that African Americans have endured: paying reparations to blacks need not open a Pandora’s Box of other grievances, it is argued. My dissertation puts forward a theory of reparations in the domestic liberal democratic context, grounded in a variety of real world cases, that suggests that governments owe reparations in a much wider range of situations than is usually recognized. Though some compelling reparations claims refer to racialized state-sponsored injustices (e.g., Japanese American internment, the illegal annexation of Hawaii, the Tuskegee syphilis study), others have little to do with race (e.g., eugenical sterilization surgeries, LSD experimentation conducted under the CIA’s MKULTRA program, harms to “Atomic” veterans). The argument for paying reparations to blacks is grounded in an argument for liberal democratic governments to pay reparations whenever political power is abused. The core claim of the dissertation is that the government is unaccountable at the very times when it matters the most morally. When an injustice is conducted according to the law, not only are the activities of state personnel and taxpayer resources channeled towards unjust ends, an individual who is harmed does not have a viable means of recourse against the state. Sovereign immunity, the legal principle that the government cannot be sued without its consent, or “the King can do no wrong,” precludes redress in the majority of cases. Reparations seekers may appeal to the legislature, but this is an unreliable avenue to redress. I argue that reparations

52 citations

MonographDOI
Hanoch Dagan1
TL;DR: Dagan's 2004 book as mentioned in this paper provides a dynamic account of the American law of restitution, using an ethical perspective to expose and examine critically the normative underpinnings of the core categories of restitution.
Abstract: Dagan's 2004 book provides a dynamic account of the American law of restitution. The book reviews the existing doctrine, using an ethical perspective to expose and examine critically the normative underpinnings of the core categories of restitution. Dagan also discusses some of the most controversial issues in the area, such as cohabitation, improper tax payments, and the role of constructive trusts as trumps in bankruptcy. He further tackles the recent restitution claims of slave laborers (or their descendants) against corporations that benefited from their enslavements, and of governmental bodies against injurious industries. Dagan argues that the concept of unjust enrichment is not an independent reason for restitution but, rather, serves as a loose framework. By integrating doctrinal and ethical analyses of restitution across the spectrum of restitution contexts, the author offers significant and provocative insights on existing law as well as possible reforms.

49 citations