Can Tribal Nations Regain Their Lost Sovereignty Through Diplomacy?

Abstract

Although Native Nations possess their own form of self-government, restrictive acts passed by Congress and Court Case precedents limit tribal sovereignty. This paper examines unfulfilled treaties between the federal government and tribal nations and the lack of negotiations between both powers. Acts such as Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act in 1830 and the Indian Reorganization Act were created without tribal input, and therefore unpopular among Native Nations. Although Congress gradually worked towards encouraging state agencies and Native Nations to collaborate by passing the  Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, these acts themselves were created and decided upon only by Congress without tribal input. US Supreme Court precedents also diminish Indian sovereignty through restrictive precedents that severely limit tribal governments’ judicial power. Due to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the primary legal precedent on the theory of Indian sovereignty, Native Nations lack the designation of a foreign state, and therefore a foreign sovereign. Precedents such as Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Montana v. United States limit Native Nations from possessing judicial and legislative authority over non-Indians on their land. Through cooperative agreements between tribal governments and local governments such as The Swinomish Cooperative Land Use Program and the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency Management Plan Native Nations possess a means for their voice to be included when solving issues concerning them.