Abstract
This article tackles the issue of tribal sovereignty on Indian territories in relation to the Cobell v. Salazar settlement (Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F. 3d 808, (D.C. Cir.), 2009). As a result of the superimposition of multiple laws and their successive, and sometimes inconsistent, implementation, the legal status of Native American lands in the US is highly intricate and testifies to the complexity of articulating indigenous specificity and the different levels of federalism. Cobell v. Salazar, which puts an end to a class-action lawsuit of fourteen years, recognizes that the federal government has mismanaged Indian trust lands and provides for the allocation of a two-million-dollar fund for tribes to repurchase the tiny tracts of individually owned land deriving from the Dawes Act of 1887. What degree of autonomy has the settlement generated? Is it yet another example of negotiated and partial autonomy?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
