Indigenous Strategic Plans and Legal Pluralism in the Wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Restoule
In the wake of the pivotal Supreme Court of Canada decision Restoule v. Canada (2024), a glaring beacon shines on the necessity for meaningful adherence to Indigenous laws—not merely in the form of policies but as integral fibers within organizational structures. This recent judgment mandates the government to remunerate First Nations for historical Treaty breaches, sending an unequivocal message about the significance of upholding treaty obligations (Supreme Court of Canada, 2024).
The existence of Indigenous Strategic Plans, while suggestive of inclusivity, falls significantly short in compelling organizations to truly abide by Indigenous laws—a fact mirrored in the nonadherence to Treaties throughout history. But why the disconnect? Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) offers a lens: societal hierarchies and institutionalized superiority manifest in perfunctory acknowledgments that perpetuate dominance rather than driving substantive change.
Embracing legal pluralism means more than drafting plans. It requires the dissolution of tokenistic documents and the forging of new ones that are rooted in genuine Indigenous legal traditions. Organizations must seize the imperative to change now, lest they find themselves retreading the government's costly footsteps before the courts. It's a call to action for transformative integration of Indigenous laws, which not only upholds moral and legal imperatives but also enriches institutional integrity and social justice, benefiting all members of society.
Let Restoule v. Canada serve as a sobering reminder: To honor treaties and Indigenous laws is not just a legal duty but a beacon for a harmonious future underpinned by respect, understanding, and legal pluralism.
