New Zealand tribunal on the issue of sovereignty in the case of a treaty between the British Crown and the Moari. This is a relevant issue in British Columbia territories where there were no treaties, and where we now talk mostly about land, and little discuss the underlying constitutional problem of legitimate sovereign authority, or lack of it. The link below is to the whole report of the tribunal, which seems to have colonial apologists in a frenzy. We have concluded that in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapū and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā. The rangatira also agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown. The Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had been wrongly acquired. In our view that promise, too, was part of the agreement made in February 1840. Further, as part of the treaty agreement, the rangatira may well have consented to the Crown protecting them from foreign threats and representing them in international affairs where necessary. If so, however, the intention of signatory rangatira was that Britain would protect their independence, not that they would relinquish their sovereignty.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:05:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015