Negotiating claims: Recognition, citizenship, and the emergence of indigenous land claim negotiation policies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

This study asks: Why do governments choose to negotiate indigenous land claims rather than resolve claims through some other means? I explore why a government would choose to implement a negotiation policy, where it commits itself to a long-run strategy of negotiation over a number of claims and over a significant course of time. This study therefore examines the emergence of a particular type of policy response and the institutions that support it.;Why is the negotiation outcome interesting? For policymakers to choose a negotiation policy, policymakers must reach two prior conclusions: (1) that they will recognize indigenous special land and political rights claims by enshrining the principle of indigenous consent in the policy process, and (2) that policymakers will not divorce themselves politically from the outcomes of negotiation by delegating their decisionmaking power to another party. To negotiate is to recognize collective rights while inviting possible blame for policy outcomes that will likely prove unpopular.;I examine the development of indigenous land claims politics in four countries, primarily since the second world war: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. I argue that the emergence of negotiation policies is explained by the interaction between judicial change and indigenous political mobilization, and not judicial change alone. Specifically, the sequencing of political mobilization prior to judicial determinations regarding indigenous land rights significantly changes policymakers' evaluations of their policy alternatives. Political mobilization before significant court decisions means that policymakers must make policy choices in a context where indigenous people can credibly threaten to impose future political costs. The study links collective action and judicial change to explain the emergence of new policy institutions.;I also identify three mediating variables that further condition policymakers' evaluations of the negotiation option. These variables are: (1) political norms that affect policymakers' underlying preference for delegation; (2) the cohesion on average of the country's indigenous claimants; and (3) federalism, specifically the allocation of legislative competence over aboriginal affairs and resource management.