Limitations of Selected Methodology

Through my research I was able to identify precise impacts to communities that resulted from the loss of territoriality. This result moves the discussion of local governance forward in new ways because it adds a new level of specificity so that policy makers can understand the actual impacts of how constructing property regimes impacts on governance capacity. For the first time, we can itemize what happens when local communities are not able to govern in ways that they need to address the wellbeing of their communities. However, what is not reflected in my findings is identifying whether communities are capable of governing themselves and, if not, how this capacity could be increased.

Additionally, my methodology is limited in the following ways. My key informants include Alaska Native leaders and Alaska Native organizational leaders, YRITWC staff and consultants, attorneys, and community representatives. I did not interview state and federal officials because the data that would be generated through these interviews was accessible

CEUeTDCollection

through archival documents in the form of official government papers and in legal pleadings. I chose instead to focus on obtaining information that was not otherwise available. The information I collected from my key informant interviews cannot be found in any other documents or records.

Similarly, I had minimal contact with individual community leaders from villages within my study area. This was in part a matter of logistics as I had no ability to travel to the YRITWC member communities due to the high cost of travel to the remote villages along the Yukon and the lack of funding to do so. Therefore, the only community leaders I had access to were those who attended the 2013 Biennial YRITWC Summit in Mayo, Canada. Having the opportunity to interview more community leaders throughout the 55 Alaska Native tribal members of the YRITWC would have resulted in a broader representation of opinions regarding the impacts of the loss of territoriality on community wellbeing. Given this restriction, I limited my case study to the work of the YRITWC as an institution and the institutional responses to the lack of territorial governance capacity. As a member organization that takes direction from its community delegates, I can assume a level of representativeness.

This research is limited temporally. It represents a slice in time. Laws and regulations are already changing from when I started this research, some of these changes are accounted for here but other efforts are on-going. The legal and practice landscape is constantly changing, making this research extraordinarily interesting and timely.

This research is likewise limited geographically. The YRITWC is an international organization and so spans two completely different national jurisdictions with very different legal frameworks. The First Nations on the Canadian side of the border experience tremendous challenges to ensuring that they can meet the needs of their community members in much the

CEUeTDCollection

same way that Alaska tribes do, but the legal landscape is entirely distinct. The Alaska tribes, unlike the Canadian First Nations, cannot govern the lands they occupy, making the Alaskan experience the only setting appropriate to assess the consequences of the loss of territoriality on tribal governance capacity. Therefore, the research and conclusions are limited in scope to communities that, like Alaska tribes, lack a geographic source and scope of jurisdiction.

CEUeTDCollection

CHAPTER 3. ALASKA’S UNIQUE APPROACH TO TERRITORIALITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN AMERICA’S ARCTIC

The U.S. government settled indigenous claims to traditional lands in a unique way that transformed customary land rights and systems of governance into corporate for profit ownership models. The outcome of this approach illuminates the stark difference between land ownership and land governance in a way that can be instructive for communities and nation-states around the world struggling with how to construct property rights frameworks. As described herein, the failure to understand this distinction created obstacles to the ability of tribal governments to assert the right to self-determination and the capacity to govern for community wellbeing.

My research aim was to understand the impacts of the loss of territoriality (governance over lands and resources) on the ability of Alaska Native tribes to govern for their own wellbeing. My inquiry into how the loss of territoriality impacts community wellbeing embeds three distinct variables: land rights, governance and wellbeing. This chapter examines how these three variables interact in general terms among indigenous tribes in the U.S. where those tribes have retained authority over territory. This understanding provides the context to then examine the State of Alaska, where the sovereign right to govern traditional territory is markedly different.

This chapter describes critical terms necessary to frame my analysis. The idea of territoriality as the nexus between land and governance is examined both as a whole, and then broken into its constituent parts: property rights and governance authority. The term

“development” as it is used in this research is likewise explored, and I introduce the term wellbeing as a component of human development. As described here, the recent application of human development principles in the Arctic provides a framework for discussing how governance policies are or are not capable of promoting community “wellbeing” as that term is

CEUeTDCollection

defined in human development literature. Finally, this chapter introduces human rights and the right of self-determination as guidepost to assess how Alaska indigenous communities are faring.