A NOTE TO READERS
I have finished classes, but of course I will always have much to learn. Again, I find myself telling stories that are not mine to tell. Readers, please always continue to learn as well, peruse primary sources, and familiarize yourselves with these perspectives directly.
INTRODUCTION
On opposite sides of the world, the Makah and Māori tribes have very different origins, historical and cultural trajectories, and current relationships with their respective colonizing sovereignties. However, the two tribes developed culturally in similarly temperate climates utilizing comparable natural resources from the land and sea. This paper will outline the similarities and differences between the two groups and what implications these similarities and differences have for the formation and maintenance of international legal regimes governing the indigenous use of marine natural resources.
The most comprehensive and applicable definition of the term “indigenous” is found in the United Nations’ Study on the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations:
“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.”
There is an extensive body of literature documenting the history of Europeans travelling to other continents or islands, claiming the new lands for their sovereign entity, and exploiting marine resources to the brink of extirpation or even extinction in a matter of years, resources that indigenous groups had previously sustainably utilized for centuries. As capitalism generally accompanies these new political regimes that are imposed on indigenous groups, it exhibits the tendency of penetrating natural resource management regimes (Bess 2001, 24; De Alessi 2012) such that even after the worldwide social justice movement and calls for incorporating indigenous viewpoints into management, it continues to pervade indigenous cultures, as evidenced by the Māori’s current position in New Zealand’s fisheries (see Bowditch 2017). In the case of the Māori, it has resulted in a statistically significant difference in subjective well-being of indigenous and non-indigenous people in response to economic privation (Sibley et al. 2011). Though there is an ongoing debate of whether indigenous groups effectively managed their resources in a truly sustainable manner or whether these groups simply lacked the sheer number of people required to overexploit marine resources (Kahui & Richards 2014), the debate is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper seeks only to discuss two examples of indigenous groups in the context of social movement theory, the groups’ political relations with colonial powers, and implications for the future direction of international law and governance of marine living resources.
MAKAH PRE-CONTACT HISTORY AND CULTURE
The Makah people are located in Neah Bay and the surrounding areas, the Northwestern-most point in the contiguous United States. Due to the natural attributes of the geographic region (short growing season, limited availability of arable land, and wealth of resources offered by adjacent marine and forest ecosystems), agriculture was not a main form of subsistence. The practice of whaling, sealing, and fishing, however, were integral aspects of the development of pre-contact Makah culture. Archaeological and linguistic evidence corroborated by oral traditions suggest that the practice of whaling is older than the tribe itself. That is, Makah ancestors spread to the Olympic Peninsula from a larger population on Vancouver Island at some point significantly before 1850 (Nakayama 2001). The ties that connect the Makah to other tribes across the Strait of Juan de Fuca are without question stronger than any ties the Makah share with other tribes in Washington State. This is also evident by the geographically central location of the Makah villages within the historic North-South indigenous trade network: Tribes south of Cape Flattery often traded sea otter skins, abalone, and vermilion with the Makah, while tribes north of the Strait of Juan de Fuca often traded dentalium (mollusk shells shaped like teeth), cedar bark, canoes, and dried salmon in exchange for the Makah’s whale products, excess halibut, baskets, mats, and berries (Tweedie 2002, page 29).
Of the above described aspects of Makah culture, it is most important to note the prominence of whaling, sealing, and fishing activities. This is exemplified by recorded comments from the negotiations of the Treaty of 1855. While thousands died from continuous outbreaks of smallpox, tuberculosis, influenza, and whooping cough, remaining tribal elders agreed that ceding 300,000 acres of land was a small price to pay to secure access to education and health care and to protect the tribe’s right to continue whaling, sealing, and fishing activities “at usual and accustomed grounds and stations […] in common with all citizens of the United States” (Treaty with the Makah 1855). This last stipulation was clearly the most important to the Makah; as one Makah leader proclaimed during the Treaty negotiations: “I want the sea. That is my country” (Reid 2015, page 12; Treaty with the Makah 1855).
THE TREATY OF 1855 AND DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONS
The Treaty with Makah signed in 1855 secured the right of the tribe to continue marine living resource extraction activities according to custom for what was understood by both parties to be secured in perpetuity. After the boom in commercial whaling activities began to deplete stocks worldwide, the Makah publicly declared their intention to cease whaling activities to protect the future of the stocks. For decades following this, Makah refrained from exercising their protected treaty right to hunt whales. Though each piece of legislation subsequently implemented at the national and international level also expressly protected the Makah’s right to hunt whales for subsistence and/or cultural purposes, the tribe continued to refrain from whaling activities. Then in 1995, one year after the North Pacific Gray Whales were delisted from the United States’ domestic Endangered Species list, the Makah respectfully requested permission to resume their traditional whaling activities. This ignited a public discourse and set into motion a series of legal battles. The public discourse, the two court cases, and an untimely and unauthorized hunt have resulted in delayed and controversial draft Environmental Impact Statements, the most recent of which is still pending review. In the meantime, the 2002 outcome of Anderson v. Evans prohibits the Makah from initiating another whale hunt.
MĀORI PRE-CONTACT HISTORY AND CULTURE
The largest segment of the Māori population still resides in New Zealand, though a smaller segment resides in Australia and several populations are found in the United Kingdom and the United States. Populations are found in other countries as well, but not in significant numbers. Archaeological evidence places the arrival of the Māori people to New Zealand some time between 1250 and 1300 CE. The extinction of approximately 32 species of birds used for food coincided with a cooling climate, a series of massive earthquakes and tsunamis that destroyed coastal settlements, and a growing population. It is thought that these stressors triggered the shift in cultural development toward the society the Europeans first came into contact with in 1642, a society made up of groups of people, iwi, often at war with each other, speaking different dialects and primarily fishing and utilizing horticulture for food production (Howe 2006). Though Māori traditionally participated in fishing and likely whaling activities, seafood did not comprise the primary source of protein in their diet until after this cultural transition.
Both Makah and Māori initially benefitted economically from contact with Europeans as this contact produced a newly-expanded market. Early European visitors to the Pacific Northwest sought large quantities of sea otter pelts for the particularly lucrative Chinese market in exchange for firearms, iron, copper, wool blankets, blue trade beads, and other small items. The demand was so great that sea otters were hunted virtually to extirpation by the 1830s (Reid 2015, pages 32-33). Māori, on the other hand, crewed European and American sealing and whaling expeditions in exchange for similar goods, but most notably muskets (Flude 2013).
THE TREATY OF WAITANGI TO THE CURRENT STATE OF FISHERY AFFAIRS
The introduction of muskets to the Māori and the prolonged and close interactions with European settlers and missionaries served to increase the scale of intertribal conflicts in the early 1800s, reducing the Māori population to just over half of what it was in under 50 years. Even so, by the time the Crown considered officially claiming New Zealand, the Māori outnumbered the settlers at least 30 to 1 and were well-equipped with muskets they had obtained through trade for decades (De Alessi 2012). So the Crown acquired New Zealand through Treaty (Bess 2011, 88). In 1840, both parties signed what later became known as the Treaty of Waitangi. The two different language versions of the Treaty each consisted of three parts. In the first article of the English-language, the Māori ‘cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty…’ “The Māori translation of this article, however, uses the term kawanatanga (the right if iwi to self-government in their particular region)” (Bess 2001, 26). The second article concerns possession of land; the English-language version guarantees Māori ‘the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively and individually possess…’ reserving the Crown express preemption to the lands with those resources such that the Crown would be the only entity allowed to purchase property from Māori. However, there exists a cultural discrepancy between traditional Māori and English Common Law regarding what rights are transferred with the transfer of title of property. Under English Common Law, transfer of title of property is absolute and includes the transfer of the right to exclude other from access and resource extraction on the property. But the Māori interpretation of property and resource use rights is more complicated: “Individual property in Māori society existed over things such as tools, plants and animals, but most rights were usufruct (a use right). For example, within even a single tree, one person could have the right to harvest fruit while another had the right to snare birds” (De Alessi 2012, 394). Furthermore, the text of the Māori-language version of the second article “guarantees Māori chiefs tino rangatiratanga (unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, fisheries and all their taonga). The guarantee of tino rangatiratanga contradicts the English-language version of the first article” (Bess 2001, 27). The third article of the Treaty, in both versions, granted the Māori ‘royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects’.
Though it was a source of contention, the Treaty itself did not deprive Māori of physical land, an important fact when considering the nature of customary international law concerning the recognition of sovereignty. That is, the rights of sovereignty of groups of people are customarily recognized only in the presence of claims to land and evidence of occupancy of that land. Though the Treaty was not signed by all Māori subgroups, the newly-appointed Lieutenant-Governor Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand, the North Island by Treaty and the South Island by discovery (Bess 2011, 88).
The Native Lands Act of 1862 then legalized private land transactions between settlers and Māori by translating customary Māori land claims into deeds recognizable under English law. It also created the Māori Land Court, a body that generally encouraged Māori to sell what was considered underutilized land to private buyers. At first, the Crown remained the largest buyer of these lands, especially during the recession of the 1890s, but often turned around to sell them to private buyers for a profit (Boast 2008). Over the next 40 years, this legislation and subsequent legislation facilitated the loss of most of the Māori’s best land. By 1998, Māori landholdings were down to 3 million acres from the 66 million acres they had previously exercised sovereign rights over (Mahuika 1998; Bess 2001, 27). For perspective, though approximately 15% of the population of New Zealand is Māori (Bowditch 2017), only 4.5% of the land is Māori-owned. The fishery regime during this time of systematic appropriation of Māori land between 1866 and 1962 is characterized by heavy exploitation and heavy regulation restricting entry to fisheries to commercially significant stakeholders. L.F. Ayson, Minister of Fisheries from 1908 to 1927 increased fisheries industrialization and opposed restrictions on trawling despite outcry from Māori communities (De Alessi 2012, 397). Then from 1927 to 1945, A.E. Hefford, noticing a decline in stocks, continued to support regulation that effectively restricted Māori access to fisheries while calling for a more scientific approach to fisheries (De Alessi 2012, 397). The 1950s saw a rise in foreign fishing off New Zealand’s coast, which ushered in a period of open-entry fisheries from 1963 to 1982. The system of international governance of marine areas more than 12 miles offshore was still essentially an anarchic one, and within this context, it made little sense for New Zealand to exercise restraint and take actions to conserve their coastal stocks if Japan would simply exploit them and reap the benefits instead (De Alessi 2012, 398).
By the time the international community established a framework for coastal states to protect their offshore stocks from foreign exploitation, it had become clear that New Zealand’s stocks were severely depleted. As these offshore stocks came under their exclusive control under the new regime, a system of privatization of fisheries resources known as the Quota Management System (QMS) was quickly devised and implemented to protect stocks from further domestic overexploitation. It had been hailed as one of the only economically efficient and ecologically sustainable ways to manage natural resources in Garrett Hardin’s commons, despite evidence that the Māori had for centuries practiced effective ecosystem-based management (according to Ostrom 1990’s 8 principles) of fisheries for commercial-scale inter-iwi trade networks (Bess 2001, Kahui & Richards 2014, Wai 22). This system distributed portions, or Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQs), of the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) to fishers already in the business. It further raised capital barriers to access commercial fisheries because parties must own or lease quota and have a fishing boat to participate in the fishery.
Several factors contributed to the revisions made to the QMS to more equitably allocate quota. As Māori had effectively been pushed out of fisheries for decades, many communities with few other industries had become reliant on small-scale part-time fishers, many of whom were Māori. In order to optimize for economic (Pareto) efficiency, they were not allocated quota. But prior to the original implementation of QMS, movement of people toward urban centers contributed to “a better understanding of the inner workings of cultural and political dominance, and how to structurally engage that dominance” (De Alessi 2012, 400; Walker 1990). Additionally, the 1980s “came on the heels of a period of resurgent Māori resistance, political activism and engagement with the state” (De Alessi 2012, 399). This was part of a greater worldwide social justice movement that, together with four classes of political opportunities, facilitated simultaneous institutional and cultural shifts in attitude toward Māori. These four classes of political opportunities are discussed in McAdam 1996 (page 27) and are listed in Sherman 2006 (page 514): “(1) openings in the institutionalized political system; (2) instability in the ‘elite alignments that typically undergird a polity’; (3) the presence of elite allies; and (4) a low capacity or propensity for state repression.” Importantly, the QMS, as originally designed, designated quota as a right to fish, which is what allowed Māori to demand more equitable distribution of fisheries resources by claiming formal abrogation of Treaty rights (De Alessi 2012, 514).
Among the efforts to redistribute quota more equitably among Māori and non-Māori fishers was the Muriwhenua claim. The Waitangi Tribunal (established with the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and tasked with ruling on cases claiming Waitangi Treaty violations) found numerous and serious breaches of the Treaty and found that the QMS was “in fundamental conflict with the Treaty’s principles and terms and because it apportioned to non-Māori the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of the property in fishing that to Māori was guaranteed” (Wai-9 1987, xviii). Interestingly, the claim took Canadian fisheries relations with First Nations and United States fisheries relations with Native Americans into account, concluding with a call for a new agreement to be reached between Māori and non-Māori with respect to rights to fish. In response to the claim, an interim settlement was reached in the form of the 1989 Māori Fisheries Act, which consisted of several parts: An immediate halt on the allocation of quota, provisions for the Crown to enhance Māori involvement in the management of fisheries, and creation of the Māori Fisheries Commission which was required to establish a commercial company known as Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd that would receive 10% of the TACC before 31 October 1992 and a $10 million payment (Bess 2001, 28).
The Muriwhenua claim was mainly concerned with near-shore fisheries, but the 1987 Ngai Tahu claim extended to offshore fisheries, asserting that Māori have an exclusive Treaty right to the sea out to 12 nautical miles and a partial right extending beyond that to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Bess 2001). These claims and the rulings coming out of the Waitangi Tribunal culminated in the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Act, a more comprehensive agreement than the interim agreement reached with the Māori Fisheries Act. The 1992 Act sought to end the litigation and confusion over Māori Treaty rights to fisheries. It dispersed $150 million to Māori to enter a 50/50 joint venture with Brierley Investments Ltd in the purchase of Sealord Products Ltd., a company that at the time held 22% of TACC. It also preemptively allocated 20% of all new species brought under the ITQ system to Māori, in addition to the 10% already accounted for in the 1989 interim settlement agreement. All of this was accomplished in exchange for Māori endorsement of QMS and the removal of the Waitangi Tribunal’s power to consider commercial fisheries matters (Bess 2001, Boast 1999).
The Māori Fisheries Commission then began to lease quota to iwi bodies at 60% below true market value (Boast 1999, 119). But issues surrounding the allocation of ITQs to iwi arose, which led to the clarification in the Māori Fisheries Act of 2004 that allocated quota to iwi specifically based on amount of coastline. Because iwi were given legal standing to claim fisheries, iwi membership within the Māori population increased between 1997 and 2007 (De Alessi 2012, 402).
The rise in iwi membership, coupled with the social movement toward increased conservation of fisheries resources stemming from the collapse of stocks worldwide, has led to the present state of affairs in New Zealand, an ongoing discussion concerning user conflicts between fisheries and conservation efforts in coastal and marine zones off New Zealand. Specifically, the Ministry of Fisheries has stated that it will attempt to bring 10% of New Zealand’s waters under protection for biodiversity conservation purposes by 2020, a goal in line with the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity that calls for a comprehensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to conserve marine biodiversity by 2020 (Bess & Rallapudi 2007, Ministry of Fisheries 2005).
COMMONALITIES AND DIVERGENCES IN CULTURE DEVELOPMENT
As traditionally coastal peoples, both the Makah and the Māori developed aspects of their culture around utilizing marine resources. The Makah were known among surrounding groups for their whaling prowess above all other aspects of their culture. As the Europeans began to make contact with Makah, the tribe ramped up the hunting of seals and otters to feed the growing economic demand and sustain their people through crippling disease outbreaks from pathogens introduced by the Europeans. Similarly, with the arrival of Europeans to New Zealand, the Māori ramped up their fishing activities to supply the growing population of settlers with protein (Johnson 2004). Though Stout CJ stated in Baldick v. Jackson that the Māori “were accustomed to engage in whaling,” it is not entirely clear whether they did indeed hunt whales traditionally. Regardless, oral traditional stories of ancestors arriving on the back of the whale Paikea demonstrate the importance of whales in Māori tradition. Māori definitely harvested meat from stranded whales and used the teeth and bones for ornaments (Phillips 2006).
Makah and Māori experienced prolonged contact with Europeans beginning in the late 1700s, later than other groups in the surrounding regions in the Pacific Northwest United States and Polynesian Islands. Both groups experienced severe problems as a result of initial contact with Europeans. Makah maintained primarily peaceful relations with the first European traders and the subsequent settlers, despite the introduction of smallpox that decimated the population and disrupted the social structure by severely altering the available modes of inheritance of physical and cultural property (Tweedie 2002, page 51). But the cultural development of Māori up to the point of contact likely dictated the largely conflict-laden interactions with European settlers, including cannibalism (Ingram 1984).
Today, Māori identity is manifested in iwi membership (with fisheries rights), and approximately 15% of the population of New Zealand that is now considered Māori for legal purposes (Bowditch 2017). This population is integrated culturally into mainstream New Zealand, as evidenced by the institutional incorporation of Māori interests in fisheries management and by tangentially related examples of the incorporation of haka into New Zealand’s national sports teams’ performances during international competitions (Hunt 2015). This stands in stark contrast with the approximately 1.7% of the United States population that identifies as Native American (US Census Bureau 2014), a much smaller subsection of which is Makah. The role of representation of Native Americans in government also stands in stark contrast to that of New Zealand: where four seats in Parliament were specifically designated to be filled by Māori as early as 1867 (New Zealand Electoral Commission 2014), Native Americans were not even granted voting rights in the United States until 1924 (Indian Citizenship Act 1924) and still face pushback from requests to modify derogatory symbols in mainstream culture such as the Washington Redskins (a team based out of the United States’ capitol) (Steinfeldt et al. 2010). The majority of Native Americans still live on reservations often geographically isolated from mainstream society and receive less funding per capita for education and health care services (see Rice 2017, for example). This is not limited to Native Americans, however, as evidenced by Sibley et al. 2011, a study demonstrating the still-present disparity in socioeconomic experiences between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders.
The Makah, facing debilitating socioeconomic conditions despite the economic growth experienced during the 1990s by the majority of the United States, requested to resume traditional whaling activities once gray whales were removed from the Endangered Species list. They did this in the hopes that a revitalization of such a central aspect of their culture could ameliorate these hardships (Beck 1996, Renker 1998). The Māori’s series of claims to fisheries resources was not altogether different; it involved access to utilization and participation in management of a resource central to Māori identity. Both indigenous groups were forced to witness the rapid depletion of traditionally-utilized marine resources by colonial powers while experiencing extensive erosion of Treaty rights to continue utilizing those resources.
From the above investigation, it is clear that the worldwide social justice movement responded and contributed to the revitalization of interest in upholding Treaty obligations with indigenous groups. But the differences in trajectories the countries took in response to this resurgence in indigenous activism can be attributed to several factors, namely the differences in political opportunities in the United States and in New Zealand and the differences in cultural and political representation in the two countries.
ABORIGINAL WHALING, FISHERIES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law governing the exploitation and management of marine resources has historically been crafted in such a way as to de facto exclude indigenous groups from participating in the process. Customary law dictates that sovereign ownership of discovered lands under res nullius is granted to the sovereign power that discovers and occupies it for an extended period of time, provided this discovery and occupation is recognized by other sovereign nations. Further, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the primary document governing international maritime relations and allocating responsibility for coastal resource management, requires sovereign entities to have territory, i.e. physical land, to project an Exclusive Economic Zone (Part V). The EEZ is a pelagic zone invented for legal purposes; the continental shelf generally located beneath the EEZ, is also prescribed a specific definition for legal purposes (Part VI). Both were designed to facilitate the organized exploitation and responsible management of resources within them. The Continental Shelf was first claimed and subsequently designed through the international Convention on the Continental Shelf to vest coastal States with exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from the land under the ocean up to a maximum distance from shore (200 nautical miles is standard, with up to 350 nautical miles granted to States with a legitimate geological claim to an extended continental shelf). The EEZ was designed later to address rapidly declining fish stocks, and it vested the coastal State with exclusive rights to exploit and manage pelagic marine resources (mainly said fish stocks, as the whale stocks had already collapsed from excessive commercial exploitation decades earlier) (Tanaka 2011). Again, according to UNCLOS, for a State to project an EEZ or claim a Continental Shelf and therefore gain internationally-recognized exclusive rights to extract marine resources and manage extraction of marine resources, it must have title to physical land. Time and again, this is systematically taken from indigenous groups, sometimes through treaties, sometimes through other means. In this way, it is clear that international law, as it has developed and in its current state, has expressly excluded indigenous people from participating in the crafting of international law, whether customary or codified, as it relates to the management of marine resources.
For example, there is no evidence that the declaration of the Makah’s decision to cease whaling activities in response to declining whale stocks in any way influenced the timeline on which the rest of the world began to address the overexploitation. The international community finally cooperated to form the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946. Originally formed to manage whale populations for the purpose of ensuring future exploitation potential, the IWC began by regulating commercial whaling, then instituted a moratorium in 1986. From the outset, the IWC recognized indigenous (referred to as “aboriginal” on the IWC website) whaling activities for subsistence and cultural purposes as differing from commercial whaling activities in ways important enough to warrant addressing specifically. Individual nations are expected to recognize the subsistence and cultural whaling needs of their respective indigenous populations. Individual nations are expected to submit Needs Statements to the IWC on behalf of their indigenous populations “detailing the cultural, subsistence, and nutritional aspects of the hunt, products and distribution” (IWC 2017). Then, the IWC reviews these statements with the advice provided by the Scientific Committee concerning the sustainability of proposed hunts and safe catch limits. Both sources of information are used to determine catch limits for proposed hunts. In this way, though the IWC makes a specific exception to the moratorium on whaling for indigenous groups for subsistence or cultural purposes, ultimately the decision to allow indigenous groups to participate in whaling activities comes back to the domestic sovereign entity that originally acquired dominion over them (IWC 2017).
Assimilation has undoubtedly complicated matters concerning the rights of indigenous peoples to manage marine resources they traditionally exploited, especially in the cases of the Makah and the Māori. Those who study the Makah agree that assimilation was largely peaceful and occurred quickly following the Treaty of 1855 as a result of multiple factors, including the initial decimation of the population from introduced diseases (the biggest killer of these was smallpox), the resulting grief and confusion that accompanied the disruption in the social patterns of inheritance of property and rights, and the placement of government-sponsored education and health care facilities (Tweedie 2002, 51; Fleisher 1984, 8; Colson 1953, 17-18). Though accounts of some of the Māori’s initial contact with Europeans depict a scene that is decidedly less peaceful, assimilation similarly occurred relatively rapidly. In the case of the Māori, this can be at least partially attributed to European whaling activities. As European and American whaling voyages stopped at the islands that are now New Zealand for supplies and rest, many accounts describe seafarers “going native” and staying on the islands while the Māori offered to take the places of crew members largely in exchange for firearms, but also for other payments and goods (Flude 2013). In this way, though it is unclear whether Māori traditionally hunted whales prior to contact with Europeans, whales had always held cultural significance and whaling quickly became integrated into the culture as assimilation progressed (Phillips 2006). The uncertainty surrounding traditional use of whales by Māori groups is likely a factor contributing to the absence of a quota granted to the Māori by the IWC to hunt whales. The better-documented pre-contact Māori fishing activities, on the other hand, have been integrated into the already-formulated QMS, with some interesting possible implications for the further cultural development of Māori now that their fisheries have been successfully penetrated by capitalism and their historic modes of access to fisheries and relationships to capital have been irreversibly altered. These implications are beyond the scope of this paper, but are explored in more depth in De Alessi 2012.
With this background, it can be argued by citing the IWC and New Zealand’s integration of Māori into the ITQ system that some mechanisms are currently in place to incorporate the views, histories, and cultures of indigenous people into marine resource management schemes. Still, these mechanisms are limited in scope and do not seek to integrate themselves into indigenous management schemes, but instead use the pervasive power of capitalism to penetrate relations between indigenous groups and the colonial powers that host them on the world stage. In this way, it is unfortunately difficult to foresee future developments in international law to pivot toward recognizing indigenous groups as sovereign entities of their own, carrying an equal voice in the construction of international governance and management of marine living resources.
WORKS CITED
Baldick v. Jackson – (1910) 30 NZLR 343.
Beck, A.S. (1996). The Makah’s Decision to Reinstate Whaling: When Conservationists Clash With Native Americans Over an Ancient Hunting Tradition. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 11:359-412.
Bess, R. and R. Rallapudi. (2007). Spatial conflicts in New Zealand fisheries: The rights of fishers and protection of the marine environment. Marine Policy 31(1): 719-729.
Boast, R. Buying the land, selling the land: governments and Māori land in the north island 1865-1921. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2008.
Bowditch, H. (2017). Challenges for New Zealand’s individual transferable quota system: Processor consolidation, fisher exclusion, & Māori quota rights. Marine Policy 80(1): 88-95.
Burton, B. (2000). Environment – New Zealand: Whaling policies split Māori people. Environment Bulletin. Retrieved from http://access.library.miami.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=miami_richter&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA67339317&asid=e40ca417fa155807223c8a8e05169df4
Colson, Elizabeth. The Makah Indians: A Study of an Indian Tribe in Modern American Society. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1953.
Fleisher, M.S. 1984. Acculturation and Narcissism: A Study of Culture Contact among the Makah Indians. Anthropos 79:409-431.
Fleras, A. and P. Spoonley. Recalling aotearoa: indigenous politics and ethnic relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Flude, Anthony. (2013). Whaling Among the Māori and Missionaries. In A Savage History: Whaling in the Pacific and Southern Oceans (p. 55). Sydney: UNSW Press.
Houghton, Philip (1980). The First New Zealanders. Hodder & Stoughton.
Howe, K.R. ‘Ideas of Māori origins’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 3-Apr-2006.
Hunt, T. (19 September 2015). “Flashback: The All Blacks perform haka for the first time”. Stuff. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
Indian Citizenship Act, June 2, 1924. Retrieved from http://legisworks.org/congress/68/publaw-175.pdf.
Ingram, C.W.N. New Zealand Shipwrecks 1975-1982. Auckland: New Zealand Consolidated Press, 1984.
International Whaling Commission. (1946). Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/aboriginal.
Johnson, D. Hooked: The Story of the New Zealand Fishing Industry. Christchurch: Hazard Press, 2004.
Kahui, V. and A. C. Richards. (2014). Lessons from resource management by indigenous Māori in New Zealand: Governing the ecosystems as a commons. Ecological Economics 102(1): 1-7.
Mahuika, A. (1998). ‘Whakapapa is the Heart’. In Living Relationships: Kok¯iri ngat¯ahi: The Treaty of Waitangi in the New Millennium. ed. K.S. Coates and P.G. McHugh, 214–21. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Fisheries. Marine protected areas policy and implementation plan. Wellington: Ministry of Fisheries; 2005.
Nakayama, T. Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001)
Native Lands Act, September 15, 1862. 26 Victoriae 1862 No 42. Retrieved from http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nla186226v1862n42251/.
New Zealand Electoral Commission. (20 October 2014). Māori Representation. Retrieved 4 May 2017 from http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/Māori-representation.
New Zealand Press Association (NZPA). (2005). Māori Party starts to talk detail on foreshore bill. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 30 April 2017 from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/news/article.cfm?c_id=350&objectid=10357412
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Pálsson, G. (1999). The implications of the ITQs: theory and context. Proceedings of the Fishrights99 Conference. Fremantle, Australia. p. 14-17.
Phillips, J. (12 June 2006). ‘Whaling – Māori and whaling’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved from: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/whaling/page-4.
Reid, J. The Sea is My Country: The Maritime World of the Makahs, an Indigenous Borderlands People. Yale University Press, 2015.
Renker, Ann. (1998). “The Makah Tribe: People of the Sea and the Forest.” American Indians of the Pacific Northwest Collection. University of Washington Libraries. Retrieved from http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/renker.html.
Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Orakei Claim, Wai 9, 1987.
Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Muriwhenua Claim, Wai 22, 1988.
Rice, Z. (30 April 2017). “On the Havasupai Indian Reservation, a failing school has sparked a battle against the government”. Mic. Retrieved 28 April 2017. Available at https://mic.com/articles/175358/on-the-havasupai-indian-reservation-a-failing-school-has-sparked-a-battle-against-the-government#.kDDp3HwOq
Sibley, C.G., Harré, N., Hoverd, W.J., and C.A. Houkamau. (2011). The gap in the subjective wellbeing of Māori and New Zealand Europeans Widened Between 2005 and 2009. Social Indicators Research 104(1): 103-115.
Steinfeldt, J.A., Thomas, L.R., and M.R. White. (2010). Legislative efforts to eliminate native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos: Slow but steady progress post-APA resolution. American Psychological Association. Available at http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/communique/2010/08/native-themed-mascots.aspx
Tanaka, Y. (2011). The international law of the sea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2, p. 43-73.
Treaty with the Makah, United States-Makah Tribe, March 8, 1855. Retrieved from Maurer School of Law database. http://www.law.indiana.edu/publicland/files/makah_1855_treaty.pdf.
Tweedie, A. (2002). Drawing back culture: The Makah struggle for repatriation.
United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8fd1b4.html.
United Nations. (1987). Study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations, V. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1986/7 Add. 4. New York: United Nations.
United States Census Bureau. (2014). Selected Population Profile in the United States. 2014 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
Walker, R. (1990). Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End. Auckland: Penguin.
Victoria's Essays on Ocean Policy 