Abstract
ABSTRACT In several essays, Jeremy Waldron has suggested that changed circumstances may have superseded the rights of Native peoples to their ancestral lands. I contend that his argument is problematic and propose a Kant-inspired framework to assess the property and territorial claims of Native peoples. My conclusion is that, while in many cases they must share their country with the descendants of their colonizers and later arrivals, their prior property and territorial entitlements can leave a strong normative residue that should be addressed. My argument has general implications, but I focus on the Qom people in Argentina.
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 callMore From: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Disclaimer: 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.
