Abstract
ABSTRACT Renewed emphasis by the executive branch regarding the value of indigenous knowledge in government policy hints at the long historical trajectory of eliding native perspectives in American federal planning. Even liberal democracies can marginalize social groups through the enforcement or threat of enforcement of laws. Rules-based societies therefore can exercise disproportionate command through the application of laws in which sanctions are attached to noncompliance. This article follows Charles Dunlap’s definition of lawfare, where laws are applied, or misapplied, as a substitute for military action in order to achieve an operational objective. Lawfare so defined is a valuable lens through which to view the Standing Rock Sioux protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a more than 1000 mile long underground oil pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois. This protest was effectively criminalized and dissent met with sanctions including incarceration. The case illustrates the fragility of rights when the law is applied to achieve operational objectives.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
