Search

Indigenous peoples have, to varying degrees, turned to the courts to litigate their ongoing disputes with Canada's settler colonial governments. Scholars have examined well the ways courts are used for strategic political ends by a variety of Indigenous and non-Indigenous litigants and are laden with settler values and institutional logics that are foreign to Indigenous peoples. However, it is less clear what effect turning to the courts in pursuit of strategic goals has on specific relationships between Indigenous peoples. This gap is more pronounced in Métis scholarship where there have been few final appellate cases. This paper argues the interaction between the Manitoba Métis Federation and Treaty 1 peoples seeking leave to intervene at the Manitoba Court of Appeal in MMF v. Canada illuminates the way litigating Indigenous-settler disputes can advance divisive, exclusionary, zero-sum political relationships between Indigenous peoples. These fractious interactions serve to undermine the construction of a co-ordinated and related inter-Indigenous decolonizing politics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Forecasting votes understood as citizens revealed preferences in collective choices allow to evaluate electoral success opportunities both for incumbents and opposition and to anticipate future public policies. In this paper, we provide forecasts for the 2007 French presidential election gathering contributions from Public Choice theory and Political science dealing with electoral behaviors. Forecasts generated at a sub-national level exhibit more accuracy at the second round than at the first one. We propose some explanation and improvements for 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]