Academic literature on the topic 'Oklahoma (Territory) Constitutional Convention'

From every State and Territory of Australia, including the islands of the Torres Strait over 200 delegates gathered at the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention in Uluru, which has stood on Anangu Pitjantjatjara country in the Northern Territory since time immemorial, to discuss the issue of constitutional recognition. Delegates agreed that tokenistic recognition would not be enough, and that recognition bearing legal substance must stand, with the possibility to make multiple treaties between Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders and the Commonwealth Government of Australia. In this paper, we look at the roadmap beyond such a potential change. We make the case for a redistributive approach to capital, and propose key outcomes for social reconstruction, should a voice to parliament, a Makarrata[1] Commission and multiple treaties be enabled through a successful referendum. We conclude that an alteration of the Commonwealth Constitution (Cth) is the preliminary overture of a suite of changes: the constitutional change itself is not the end of the road, but simply the beginning of years of legal change, which seeks provide a socio-economic future for Australia’s First Peoples, and the oldest continuing cultures in the world. Constitutional change seeks to transform the discourse about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander relations with the Australian state from one centred on distributive justice to one that is primarily informed by retributive justice. This paper concerns the future generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and their right to labour in a market that honours their cultural contributions to humanity at large. [1] Yolŋu ceremony for coming together after a struggle.

Although the practice of hybrid courts was aimed at repressing international crimes, it also represents a reliable and effective model for examining cases on violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms within the territories with contested jurisdiction, not in the light of territorial dispute settlement but from the perspective of remediation, prevention and infringements ending rational within territories where there is no fair, constitutional and independent justice system. Such courts would represent the optimal solution for assessing any cases on human rights violations on the territory of self-proclaimed Dniester Republic in line with the lawfulness exercise, until the final settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict. The jurisdiction could include a panel composed of 7 judges, of which 3 would be appointed by the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova, pursuant to different formulas, 2 – appointed by the UN and 2 – appointed by the OSCE. At least 3 judges shall be preferably from among the former judges of an international jurisdiction (e.g. the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights etc.). The European Convention on Human Rights could serve as the applicable substantive law, and the legislation of the Republic of Moldova – as the procedural law. The impact of creating such a court would be pivotal for the establishment of a human rights „coverage area” on the left bank of the Dniester. It is recommended however, for the proper functioning of this jurisdiction, especially endowed with confidence in the act of justice under the guarantee of international judges, that the origin of this jurisdiction shall be an external one, preferably a UN based one.

The purpose of this article is to identify the features of restriction of ownership on the subjects of technology transfer regarding production of medicines and the right to run business on the import of medicines in conditions of conflict and temporary occupation. The methodological basis of the conducted research is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. When determining the legitimate purpose of restriction, it is necessary to apply the principle of proportionality, which is the concordance of measures applied to the above entities in order to limit the exercise of their rights with those public values that are protected by such restriction. On the procedural level, the State having realized the right for withdrawal has to comprehensively inform the General Secretary of the Council of Europe as for the measures taken and the reasons for them, as well as the time when those measures have ceased to apply and the provisions of the Convention are profoundly applied again. As the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows, the derogation from the obligations under the Convention must have territorial and temporal specifications. The following features of the constitutional and legal regulation of restriction of property rights for subjects of technology transfer to the production of medicines are revealed: 1) restrictions on the implementation of these rights should be provided by the law, which must meet the following requirements: clarity, accuracy, accessibility; 2) the measure is a temporal one; 3) the range of entities in respect of which it is applied to are the subjects of technology transfer being residents of the aggressor country; 4) legitimate purpose of implementation is protection of public values (national security, life and health of persons staying on the territory of Ukraine, territorial integrity, etc.); 5) necessary in democratic society. The following features of the constitutional and legal regulation of restrictions on the right for running business activities regarding import of medicines during conflict and temporary occupation of the part of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation are revealed: 1) restrictions on the exercise of these rights are provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Foreign Economic Activity” from 04.07.2017 №18.1-07/18369, which meets the following requirements: clarity, accuracy, accessibility; 2) the measure is temporal one; 3) the range of entities in respect of which it is applied to is addressed to the applicants of medicinal products, alternative and/or potential manufacturers, applicants-holders of registration certificates of which are the subjects of the Russian Federation; 4) legitimate purpose of implementation is protection of life and health of persons staying on the territory of Ukraine in connection with the impossibility of providing Ukraine with proper control over the quality of production of medicines within the Russian Federation; 5) necessary in democratic society.

The place and role of state intelligence bodies in the mechanism of ensuring constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to international standards and in the light of the newly adopted Laws of Ukraine «On the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine» and «On Intelligence» are studied. It is proved that in Ukraine, as in other post-Soviet states that did not have intelligence legislation, but began to create it after the declaration of independence, the process of constitutional and legal regulation of intelligence agencies consisted of four stages (transitional, initial, basic and modern). Describing each stage, the authors stressed that the Ukrainian legislator is now in the fourth stage, which is characterized by the improvement of already adopted legislation on intelligence activities or the adoption of completely new laws based on new versions or amendments to constitutions (basic laws). It is emphasized that Ukraine has been one of the first states in the territory of the former USSR to adopt the fourth (modern) stage since the adoption of new legislative acts on the activities of intelligence agencies. Undoubtedly, the impetus for this was the amendment of the Constitution of Ukraine on the strategic course of the state to become a full member of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which radically changed the direction and direction of intelligence use of available forces and means. It is noted that the newly adopted legislation was developed not out of thin air, but based on a set of already adopted regulations that fully reflect the complex threatening situation around Ukraine and clearly indicate the place of intelligence agencies in a single system of national security. It was necessary to summarize all the adopted preliminary normative material and summarize it in new legislative acts, which would in a new way regulate all issues of intelligence functioning in modern difficult conditions. The main positive points in the newly adopted laws are identified, namely: 1) granting categories that were previously used only in the theory of intelligence, the status of legal categories, which indicates the beginning of the process of forming a completely new set of special legal terms; 2) inclusion in the text of a separate article on the observance of human rights and freedoms in the conduct of intelligence activities; 3) inclusion in the Law of Ukraine «On Intelligence» of a separate section on the peculiarities of democratic civilian control over intelligence; 4) granting the right to intelligence agencies to conduct intelligence affairs. It is proposed to consider in the Ukrainian legislation some legal provisions of the legislation of European countries regarding parliamentary control, which, according to the authors, will significantly increase the effectiveness of control. It is substantiated that the Law of Ukraine «On Intelligence» should contain: - a list of principles of intelligence activities must be defined; - the obligation of the authorized judge of the court to draw up a decision on the refusal to grant permission to conduct an intelligence event is more correctly formulated; - the right of intelligence agencies to provide training, retraining and advanced training of persons involved in confidential cooperation, in the manner prescribed by law for intelligence officers, is more clearly defined. It is concluded that the newly adopted laws provide comprehensive guarantees of compliance with the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and fully reflect the needs of intelligence agencies in the legal regulation of their activities in modern conditions.

From the time of the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) until today, there have been occasional but continuous attacks on the territory, the population, and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. No matter how the agreements of the Novi Pazar Convention, the Sangermen Peace Treaty, the Vidovdan Constitution, or the Zavnobih principles were violated and circumvented, the attack on the independent, sovereign, and complete BiH, a country of equal peoples and others, ie citizens, continued with equal intensity after the 1990s. XX century until today. The paper presents the continuity of fraud in terms of legal regulations, ie the legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are witnessing continuous unconstitutional and illegal activities in BiH, and whose political mentors and tutors almost always came from outside BiH, while the concrete action was carried out and is still carried out by certain Bosnian Serb and Croat political entities who often behave completely servilely concerning the national policies of neighboring countries: Croatia and Serbia, but also certain international factors due to the consequences of Islamophobia are often willing to ignore the rule of law and human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, what they jealously protect in their countries. The example of promoting the unconstitutional Day of the Republika Srpska entity and the overall state of legal unfoundedness and political hysteria created around it testifies to the claim that the political destiny of this country is still largely conditioned by local servility, and not by correct political-partnership relations with Serbia and Croatia. Given this, it is quite certain that the constitutional consistency and consociational model of democracy as well as the principle of the constituency of the people, although a big noose around the neck of this country on the path to a civil state and full realization of human rights, is extremely important legal and political support in Bosniak and all other patriotic forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which should be used properly in an insincere and ill-intentioned environment. The work in front of you contains two interrelated parts, the first part which refers to several historically important legal documents, from the end of the 19th century, which are mala fide the activity of different subjects, who initially proclaimed them and even stood behind them, played or derogated fraus legis, and the second part indicates the continuity of these actions, both domestically and internationally when it comes to the current time and recent history of political and legal relations in BiH.

443Human rights — Environmental rights — Deforestation of Colombian Amazon forest — Protection of human rights — Right to a healthy environment — Right to life — Right to health — Colombian action of protection (“acción de tutela”) of human rights — Whether appropriate mechanism for applicants to protect their rights — Climate change — Effects — International and national instruments for protection of environment — Whether Amazon an entity “subject of rights” — Whether defendants failing to protect applicants’ rights — Whether defendants violating Paris Agreement on Climate Change and Colombian Law 1753 of 2015Jurisdiction — Human rights protection — Collective rights — Appropriate mechanism to protect applicants’ rights — Acción de tutela — Whether appropriate for protection of collective rights and interests — Whether protection of environment entailing safeguarding of supra-legal individual guarantees — Whether minors can bring claim without representationTerritory — Whether territories “subject of rights” — Human rights — Environmental rights — Deforestation of Colombian Amazon forest — Ecocentric anthropic society — Whether Amazon an entity “subject of rights”Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015 — Other international instruments — International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 — Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1976 — Protocol I additional to Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977 — 1972 Stockholm Declaration — United Nations Environment Programme — United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 — United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development — Rio Declaration on Environment and Development — Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests — Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 — Colombian Law 1844 of 2017 approving Paris Agreement — Colombian Law 1753 of 2015 — Constitution of Colombia — Whether Colombia violating its obligations under international and national law — Whether defendants failing to protect 444applicants’ rights — Whether defendants violating Paris Agreement on Climate Change and Law 1753 of 2015Human rights — Right to a healthy environment — Environmental rights — Action of protection (“acción de tutela”) in Colombia to protect human rights — Article 86 of Colombian Constitution — Popular action (“acción popular”) to protect human rights — Article 88 of Colombian Constitution — Right to life expectancy — Environmental protection — Right to enjoy a healthy environment, life and health — Relationship of environment and ecosystem with fundamental rights of life and health, and with human dignity — Fundamental rights to access water, breathe clean air and enjoy healthy environment — Right not to be sick due to environmental degradation — Right to fresh water — Right to environmental sanitationEnvironment — Territory — Whether territories “subject of rights” — Prevalence of general interest — Duty to protect natural wealth of nation — Ecological function of private property — Natural parks as inalienable, imprescriptible and unattachable — Sustainable development — Collective rights and interests — Colombian Constitutional Court Judgment C-431 of 2000 — Amazon Cooperation Treaty, 1978 — Precautionary principle — Principle of intergenerational equity — Principle of solidarity — The law of Colombia

Introduction In 2017, 250 Indigenous delegates from across the country convened at the National Constitution Convention at Uluru to discuss a strategy towards the implementation of constitutional reform and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council). Informed by community consultations arising out of 12 regional dialogues conducted by the government appointed Referendum Council, the resulting Uluru Statement from the Heart was unlike any constitutional reform previously proposed (Appleby & Synot). Within the Statement, the delegation outlined that to build a more equitable and reconciled nation, an enshrined Voice to Parliament was needed. Such a voice would embed Indigenous participation in parliamentary dialogues and debates while facilitating further discussion pertaining to truth telling and negotiating a Treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The reforms proposed are based on the collective input of Indigenous communities that were expressed in good faith during the consultation process. Arising out of a government appointed and funded initiative that directly sought Indigenous perspectives on constitutional reform, the trust and good faith invested by Indigenous people was quickly shut down when the Prime Minster, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected the reforms without parliamentary debate or taking them to the people via a referendum (Wahlquist Indigenous Voice Proposal; Appleby and McKinnon). In this article, we argue that through its dismissal the government treated the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a passing phase or mere “thought bubble” that was envisioned to disappear as quickly as it emerged. The Uluru Statement is a gift to the nation. One that genuinely offers new ways of envisioning and enacting reconciliation through equitable relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Indigenous voices lie at the heart of reconciliation but require constitutional enshrinement to ensure that Indigenous peoples and cultures are represented across all levels of government. Filter Bubbles of Distortion Constitutional change is often spoken of by politicians, its critics, and within the media as something unachievable. For example, in 2017, before even reading the accompanying report, MP Barnaby Joyce (in Fergus) publicly denounced the Uluru Statement as “unwinnable” and not “saleable”. He stated that “if you overreach in politics and ask for something that will not be supported by the Australian people such as another chamber in politics or something that sort of sits above or beside the Senate, that idea just won't fly”. Criticisms such as these are laced with paternalistic rhetoric that suggests its potential defeat at a referendum would be counterproductive and “self-defeating”, meaning that the proposed changes should be rejected for a more digestible version, ultimately saving the movement from itself. While efforts to communicate the necessity of the proposed reforms continues, presumptions that it does not have public support is simply unfounded. The Centre for Governance and Public Policy shows that 71 per cent of the public support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, an online survey conducted by Cox Inall Ridgeway found that the majority of those surveyed supported constitutional reform to curb racism; remove section 25 and references to race; establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament; and formally recognise Indigenous peoples through a statement of acknowledgment (Referendum Council). In fact, public support for constitutional reform is growing, with Reconciliation Australia’s reconciliation barometer survey showing an increase from 77 per cent in 2018 to 88 per cent in 2020 (Reconciliation Australia). Media – whether news, social, databases, or search engines – undoubtedly shape the lens through which people come to encounter and understand the world. The information a person receives can be the result of what Eli Pariser has described as “filter bubbles”, in which digital algorithms determine what perspectives, outlooks, and sources of information are considered important, and those that are readily accessible. Misinformation towards constitutional reform, such as that commonly circulated within mainstream and social media and propelled by high profile voices, further creates what neuroscientist Don Vaughn calls “reinforcement bubbles” (Rose Gould). This propagates particular views and stunts informed debate. Despite public support, the reforms proposed in the Uluru Statement continue to be distorted within public and political discourses, with the media used as a means to spread misinformation that equates an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to the establishment of a new “third chamber” (Wahlquist ‘Barnaby’; Karp). In a 2018 interview, PM Scott Morrison suggested that advocates and commentators in favour of constitutional reform were engaging in spin by claiming that a Voice did not function as a third chamber (Prime Minister of Australia). Morrison claimed, “people can dress it up any way they like but I think two chambers is enough”. After a decade of consultative work, eight government reports and inquiries, and countless publications and commentaries, the Uluru Statement continues to be played down as if it were a mere thought bubble, a convoluted work in progress that is in need of refinement. In the same interview, Morrison went on to say that the proposal as it stands now is “unworkable”. Throughout the ongoing movement towards constitutional reform, extensive effort has been invested into ensuring that the reforms proposed are achievable and practical. The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents the culmination of decades of work and proposes clear, concise, and relatively minimal constitutional changes that would translate to potentially significant outcomes for Indigenous Australians (Fredericks & Bradfield). International examples demonstrate how such reforms can translate into parliamentary and governing structures. The Treaty of Waitangi (Palmer) for example seeks to inform Māori and Pākehā (non-Maori) relationships in New Zealand/Aotearoa, whilst designated “Māori Seats” ensure Indigenous representation in parliament (Webster & Cheyne). More recently, 17 of 155 seats were reserved for Indigenous delegates as Chile re-writes its own constitution (Bartlett; Reuters). Indigenous communities and its leaders are more than aware of the necessity of working within the realms of possibility and the need to exhibit caution when presenting such reforms to the public. An expert panel on constitutional reform (Dodson 73), before the conception of the Uluru Statement, acknowledged this, stating “any proposal relating to constitutional recognition of the sovereign status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be highly contested by many Australians, and likely to jeopardise broad public support for the Panel’s recommendations”. As outlined in the Joint Select Committee’s final report on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council), the Voice to parliament would have no veto powers over parliamentary votes or decisions. It operates as a non-binding advisory body that remains external to parliamentary processes. Peak organisations such as the Law Council of Australia (Dolar) reiterate the fact that the proposed reforms are for a voice to Parliament rather than a voice in Parliament. Although not binding, the Voice should not be dismissed as symbolic or something that may be easily circumvented. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to place parliament in a position where they are forced to confront and address Indigenous questions, concerns, opinions, and suggestions within debates before decisions are made. Bursting the ‘Self-Referential Bubble’ Indigenous affairs continue to be one of the few areas where a rhetoric of bipartisan agreement is continuously referenced by both major parties. Disagreement, debate, and conflict is often avoided as governments seek to portray an image of unity, and in doing so, circumvent accusations of turning Indigenous peoples into the subjects of political point scoring. Within parliamentary debates, there is an understandable reservation and discomfort associated with discussions about what is often seen as an Indigenous “other” (Moreton-Robinson) and the policies that a predominantly white government enact over their lives. Yet, it is through rigorous, open, and informed debate that policies may be developed, challenged, and reformed. Although bipartisanship can portray an image of a united front in addressing a so-called “Indigenous problem”, it also stunts the conception of effective and culturally responsive policy. In other words, it often overlooks Indigenous voices. Whilst education and cultural competency plays a significant role within the reconciliation process, the most pressing obstacle is not necessarily non-Indigenous people’s inability to fully comprehend Indigenous lives and socio-cultural understandings. Even within an ideal world where non-Indigenous peoples attain a thorough understanding of Indigenous cultures, they will never truly comprehend what it means to be Indigenous (Fanon; de Sousa Santos). For non-Indigenous peoples, accepting one’s own limitations in fully comprehending Indigenous ontologies – and avoiding filling such gaps with one’s own interpretations and preconceptions – is a necessary component of decolonisation and the movement towards reconciliation (Grosfoguel; Mignolo). As parliament continues to be dominated by non-Indigenous representatives, structural changes are necessary to ensure that Indigenous voices are adequality represented. The structural reforms not only empower Indigenous voices through their inclusion within the parliamentary process but alleviates some of the pressures that arise out of non-Indigenous people having to make decisions in attempts to solve so-called Indigenous “problems”. Government response to constitutional reform, however, is ridden with symbolic piecemeal offerings that equate recognition to a form of acknowledgment without the structural changes necessary to protect and enshrine Indigenous Voices and parliamentary participation. Davis and her colleagues (Davis et al. “The Uluru Statement”) note how the Referendum Council’s recommendations were rejected by the then minister of Indigenous affairs Nigel Scullion on account that it privileged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. They note that, until the Referendum Council's report, the nation had no real assessment of what communities wanted. Yet by all accounts, the government had spent too much time talking to elites who have regular access to them and purport to speak on the mob's behalf. If he [Scullion] got the sense constitutional symbolism and minimalism was going to fly, then it says a lot about the self-referential bubble in which the Canberra elites live. The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as testament to Indigenous people’s refusal to be the passive recipients of the decisions of the non-Indigenous political elite. As suggested, “symbolism and minimalism was not going to fly”. Ken Wyatt, Scullion’s replacement, reiterated the importance of co-design, the limitations of government bureaucracy, and the necessity of moving beyond the “Canberra bubble”. Wyatt stated that the Voice is saying clearly that government and the bureaucracy does not know best. It can not be a Canberra-designed approach in the bubble of Canberra. We have to co-design with Aboriginal communities in the same way that we do with state and territory governments and the corporate sector. The Voice would be the mechanism through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests and perspectives may be strategically placed within parliamentary dialogues. Despite accusations of it operating as a “third chamber”, Indigenous representatives have no interest in functioning in a similar manner to a political party. The language associated with our current parliamentary system demonstrates the constrictive nature of political debate. Ministers are expected to “toe the party line”, “crossing the floor” is presented as an act of defiance, and members must be granted permission to enter a “conscience vote”. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be an advisory body that works alongside, but remains external to political ideologies. Their priority is to seek and implement the best outcome for their communities. Negotiations would be fluid, with no floor to cross, whilst a conscience vote would be reflected in every perspective gifted to the parliament. In the 2020 Australia and the World Annual Lecture, Pat Turner described the Voice’s co-design process as convoluted and a continuing example of the government’s neglect to hear and respond to Indigenous peoples’ interests. In the address, Turner points to the Coalition of the Peaks as an exemplar of how co-design negotiations may be facilitated by and through organisations entirely formed and run by Indigenous peoples. The Coalition of the Peaks comprises of fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak organisations and was established to address concerns relating to closing the gap targets. As Indigenous peak organisations are accountable to their membership and reliant on government funding, some have questioned whether they are appropriate representative bodies; cautioning that they could potentially compromise the Voice as a community-centric body free from political interference. While there is some debate over which Indigenous representatives should facilitate the co-design of a treaty and Makarrata (truth-telling), there remains a unanimous call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament that may lead negotiations and secure its place within decision-making processes. Makarrata, Garma, and the Bubbling of New Possibilities An Indigenous Voice to Parliament can be seen as the bubbling spring that provides the source for greater growth and further reform. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a three-staged approach comprising of establishing an Indigenous Voice, followed by Treaty, and then Truth-Telling. This sequence has been criticised by some who prioritise Truth and Treaty as the foundation for reform and reconciliation. Their argument is based on the notion that Indigenous Sovereignty must first be acknowledged in Parliament through an agreement-making process and signing of a Treaty. While the Uluru Statement has never lost sight of treaty, the agreement-making process must begin with the acknowledgment of Indigenous people’s inherent right to participate in the conversation. This very basic and foundational right is yet to be acknowledged within Australia’s constitution. The Uluru Statement sets the Voice as its first priority as the Voice establishes the structural foundation on which the conversation pertaining to treaty may take place. It is through the Voice that a Makarrata Commission can be formed and Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples may “come together after a struggle” – the translation of the word’s Yolngu origins (Gaykamangu; Pearson). Only then may we engage in truth telling and forge new paths towards agreement-making and treaty. This however raises the question as to how a Voice to Parliament may look and what outcomes it aims to achieve. As discussed in the previous section, it is a question that is often distorted by disinformation and conjecture within public, political, and news-media discourses. In order to unpack what a Voice to Parliament may entail, we turn to another Yolngu word, Garma. Garma refers to an epistemic and ontological positioning in which knowledge is attained from a point where differences converge and new insights arise. For Yolngu people, Garma is the place where salt and fresh water intersect within the sea. Fresh and Salt water are the embodiments of two Yolngu clans, the Dhuwa and Yirritja, with Garma referring to the point where the knowledge and laws of each clan come into contact, seeking harmonious balance. When the ebb and flow of the tides are in balance, it causes the water to foam and bubble taking on new form and representing innovative ideas and possibilities. Yolngu embrace this phenomenon as an epistemology that teaches responsibility and obligations towards the care of Country. It acknowledges the autonomy of others and finds a space where all may mutually benefit. When the properties of either water type, or the knowledge belonging a single clan dominates, ecological, social, political, and cosmological balance is overthrown. Raymattja Marika-Munungguritj (5) describes Garma as a dynamic interaction of knowledge traditions. Fresh water from the land, bubbling up in fresh water springs to make waterholes, and salt water from the sea are interacting with each other with the energy of the tide and the energy of the bubbling spring. When the tide is high the water rises to its full. When the tide goes out the water reduces its capacity. In the same way Milngurr ebbs and flows. In this way the Dhuwa and Yirritja sides of Yolngu life work together. And in this way Balanda and Yolngu traditions can work together. There must be balance, if not either one will be stronger and will harm the other. The Ganma Theory is Yirritja, the Milngurr Theory is Dhuwa. Like the current push for constitutional change and its rejection of symbolic reforms, Indigenous peoples have demanded real-action and “not just talk” (Synott “The Uluru statement”). In doing so, they implored that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples be involved in all decision-making processes, for they are most knowledgeable of their community’s needs and the most effective methods of service delivery and policy. Indigenous peoples have repeatedly expressed this mandate, which is also legislated under international law through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Coming together after a struggle does not mean that conflict and disagreement between and amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities will cease. In fact, in alignment with political theories such as agonism and pluralism, coming together within a democratic system necessitates a constructive and responsive embrace of different, competing, and in some cases incommensurable views. A Voice to Parliament will operate in a manner where Indigenous perspectives and truths, as well as disagreements, may be included within negotiations and debates (Larkin & Galloway). Governments and non-Indigenous representatives will no longer speak for or on behalf of Indigenous peoples, for an Indigenous body will enact its own autonomous voice. Indigenous input therefore will not be reduced to reactionary responses and calls for reforms after the damage of mismanagement and policy failure has been caused. Indigenous voices will be permanently documented within parliamentary records and governments forced to respond to the agendas that Indigenous peoples set. Collectively, this amounts to greater participation within the democratic process and facilitates a space where “salt water” and the “bubbling springs” of fresh water may meet, mitigating the risk of harm, and bringing forth new possibilities. Conclusion When salt and fresh water combine during Garma, it begins to take on new form, eventually materialising as foam. Appearing as a singular solid object from afar, foam is but a cluster of interlocking bubbles that gain increased stability and equilibrium through sticking together. When a bubble stands alone, or a person remains within a figurative bubble that is isolated from its surroundings and other ways of knowing, doing, and being, its vulnerabilities and insecurities are exposed. Similarly, when one bubble bursts the collective cluster becomes weaker and unstable. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a vision conceived and presented by Indigenous peoples in good faith. It offers a path forward for not only Indigenous peoples and their future generations but the entire nation (Synott “Constitutional Reform”). It is a gift and an invitation “to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. Through calling for the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission, and seeking Truth, Indigenous advocates for constitutional reform are looking to secure their own foothold and self-determination. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is more than a “thought bubble”, for it is the culmination of Indigenous people’s diverse lived experiences, outlooks, perspectives, and priorities. When the delegates met at Uluru in 2017, the thoughts, experiences, memories, and hopes of Indigenous peoples converged in a manner that created a unified front and collectively called for Voice, Treaty, and Truth. Indigenous people will never cease to pursue self-determination and the best outcomes for their peoples and all Australians. As an offering and gift, the Uluru Statement from the Heart provides the structural foundations needed to achieve this. It just requires governments and the wider public to move beyond their own bubbles and avail themselves of different outlooks and new possibilities. References Anderson, Pat, Megan Davis, and Noel Pearson. “Don’t Silence Our Voice, Minister: Uluru Leaders Condemn Backward Step.” Sydney Morning Herald 20 Oct. 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/national/don-t-silence-our-voice-minister-uluru-leaders-condemn-backward-step-20191020-p532h0.html>. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Megan Davis. “The Uluru Statement and the Promises of Truth.” Australian Historical Studies 49.4 (2018): 501–9. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Gemma Mckinnon. “Indigenous Recognition: The Uluru Statement.” LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal 37.36 (2017): 36-39. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Eddie Synot. “A First Nations Voice: Institutionalising Political Listening. Federal Law Review 48.4 (2020): 529-542. Bailes, Morry. “Why the Law Council Backs an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” InDaily 31 July 2018. <https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/07/31/why-the-law-council-backs-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament/>. Bartlett, John. "Chile’s Largest Indigenous Group Sees Opportunity in a New Constitution." New York Times, 16 Sep. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/world/americas/chile-mapuche-constitution.html>. Brennan, Bridget. “Indigenous Leaders Enraged as Advisory Board Referendum is Rejected by Malcolm Turnbull.” ABC News 27 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/indigenous-leaders-enraged-by-pms-referendum-rejection/9090762>. Centre for Governance and Public Policy. OmniPoll Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2017. Griffith University: Centre for Governance and Public Policy, 30 Oct. 2017. <https://news.griffith.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Griffith-University-UNSW-Australian-Constitutional-Values-Survey-Sept-2017-Results-2.pdf>. Davidson, Helen, and Katherine Murphy. “Referendum Council Endorses Uluru Call for Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 17 July 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/17/referendum-council-endorses-uluru-call-indigenous-voice-parliament>. Davis, Megan. “Some Say a Voice to Parliament Is Toothless. But Together Our Voices Are Powerful.” The Guardian 13 Aug. 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/13/some-say-a-voice-to-parliament-is-toothless-but-together-our-voices-are-powerful>. ———. “No Time for the Meek.” The Monthly Oct. 2019. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/october/1569370776/megan-davis/no-time-meek>. ———. “Moment of Truth.” Quarterly Essay 69 (2019). <https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/content/correspondence-megan-davis>. ———. “The Long Road to Uluru – Truth before Justice.” Griffith Review 2018. <https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/long-road-uluru-walking-together-truth-before-justice-megan-davis/>. ———. “The Status Quo Ain’t Working: The Uluru Statement from the Heart Is the Blueprint for an Australian Republic.” The Monthly 7 June 2018. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/megan-davis/2018/07/2018/1528335353/status-quo-ain-t-working>. Davis, Megan, Rosalind Dixon, Gabrielle Appleby, and Noel Pearson. “The Uluru Statement.” Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Autumn (2018): 41–48. <https://search-informit-com.au.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/fullText;dn=20180726000224;res=AGISPT>. Davis, Megan, Cheryl Saunders, Mark McKenna, Shireen Morris, Christopher Mayes, and Maria Giannacopoulos. “The Uluru Statement from Heart, One Year On: Can a First Nations Voice Yet Be Heard?” ABC Religion and Ethics 26 May 2018. <https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678>. De Sousa Santos, Boaventura. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge, 2015. Dodson, P. 2012. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel. <http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/indigenous/12-01-16_indigenous-recognition-expert-panel-report.pdf>. Dolar, Sol. “Law Council Explains Government’s Key Misunderstanding of the Uluru Statement.” Australasian Lawyer 5 Nov. 2019. <https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/law-council-explains-governments-key-misunderstanding-of-the-uluru-statement/208247?m=1>. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Macgibbon & Kee, 1965. Fredericks, Bronwyn, and Abraham Bradfield. “We Don’t Want to Go Back to ‘Normal’, When ‘Normal’ Wasn’t Good for Everyone.” Axon: Creative Explorations 10.2 (2020). <https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-10-no-2-dec-2020/we-don-t-want-go-back-normal-when-normal-wasn-t-good-everyone>. Ford, Mazoe, and Clare Blumer. “Vote Compass: Most Australians Back Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians.” ABC News 20 May 2016. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/vote-compass-indigenous-recognition/7428030?nw=0>. Gaykamangu, James, and Danial Terence Kelly. “Ngarra Law: Aboriginal Customary Law from Arnhem Land.” Northern Territory Law Journal 2.4 (2012): 236-248. Grant, Stan. “Three Years on From Uluru, We Must Lift the Blindfolds of Liberalism to Make Progress.” The Conversation 25 May 2020. <https://theconversation.com/three-years-on-from-uluru-we-must-lift-the-blindfolds-of-liberalism-to-make-progress-138930>. Grosfoguel, Ramón. "Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality." Transmodernity 1.1 (2011): 1-36. Hunter, Fergus. “'It's Not Going to Happen': Barnaby Joyce Rejects Push for Aboriginal Body in Constitution.” Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-not-going-to-happen-barnaby-joyce-rejects-push-for-aboriginal-body-in-constitution-20170529-gwf5ld.html>. Karp, Paul. “Scott Morrison Claims Indigenous Voice to Parliament Would Be a Third Chamber.” The Guardian, 26 Sep. 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/scott-morrison-claims-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-would-be-a-third-chamber>. Koziol, Michael. “Joyce Admits He Was Wrong to Call Indigenous Voice a 'Third Chamber’.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 2019. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-admits-he-was-wrong-to-call-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber-20190718-p528ki.html>. Larkin, Dani, and Kate Galloway. “Uluru Statement from the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism.” Bond Law Review 30.2 (2018): 335–345. Law Council of Australia. “Nothing ‘Un-Australian’ about Human Rights, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” 14 Aug. 2017. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/nothing-unaustralian-about-human-rights-the-constitution-and-the-rule-of-law>. Law Council of Australia. “Law Council Supports Calls for Voice to Parliament.” 15 June 2018. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/law-council-supports-calls-for-voice-to-parliament>. Marika-Munugurritj, Raymattja. Workshops as Teaching Learning Environments. Paper presented to Yirrkala Action Group, 1992. Martin, Wayne AC. Constitutional Law Dinner 2018 Address by Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice of Western Australia. Sydney: Parliament House, 23 Feb. 2018. Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press, 2012. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. U of Minnesota P, 2015. Norman, Heidi. “From Recognition to Reform: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Does the Media Fail Aboriginal Political Aspirations? Eds. Amy Thomas, Andrew Jakubowicz, and Heidi Norman. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2019. 216–231. Pearson, Luke. “What Is a Makarrata? The Yolngu Word Is More than a Synonym for Treaty.” ABC Radio National 10 Aug. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452>. Praiser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, 2012. Prime Minister, Attorney General, and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Response to Referendum Council's Report on Constitutional Recognition. 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition>. Prime Minister of Australia. Radio interview with Fran Kelly. ABC Radio National 26 Sep 2018. <https://www.pm.gov.au/media/radio-interview-fran-kelly-abc-rn>. Reconciliation Australia. 2020 Australian Reconciliation Barometer, 2020. <https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/australian_reconciliation_barometer_2020_-full-report_web.pdf>. Referendum Council. Referendum Council Final Report, 2017. <https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf>. Reuters. "Chile Reserves Seats for Indigenous as It Prepares to Rewrite Constitution." Reuters, 16 Dec. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-constitution-indigenous-idUSKBN28Q05J>. Rose Gould, Wendy. “Are You in a Social Media Bubble? Here's How to Tell.” NBC News 22 Oct. 2019. <https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896>. Rubenstein, Kim. “Power, Control and Citizenship: The Uluru Statement from the Heart as Active Citizenship.” Bond Law Review 30.1 (2018): 19-29. Synott, Eddie. “The Uluru Statement Showed How to Give First Nations People a Real Voice – Now It’s the Time for Action.” The Conversation 5 Mar. 2019. <https://theconversation.com/the-uluru statement-showed-how-to-give-first-nations-people-a-real-voice-now-its-time-for-action-110707>. ———. “Constitutional Reform Made Easy: How to Achieve the Uluru Statement and a Voice.” The Conversation 7 May 2019. <https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141>. Turner, Pat. “The Long Cry of Indigenous Peoples to Be Heard – a Defining Moment in Australia.” The 'Australia and the World' 2020 Annual Lecture. National Press Club of Australia, 30 Sep. 2020. <https://ausi.anu.edu.au/events/australia-and-world-2020-annual-lecture-pat-turner-am>. Wahlquist, Calla. “A Year On, the Key Goal of Uluru Statement Remains Elusive.” The Guardian 26 May 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/26/a-year-on-the-key-goal-of-uluru-statement-remains-elusive>. ———. “Barnaby Joyce Criticised for Misinterpreting Proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 29 May 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/29/barnaby-joyce-criticised-for-misinterpreting-proposed-indigenous-voice-to-parliament>. ———. “Indigenous Voice Proposal ‘Not Desirable’, Says Turnbull.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull>. ———. “Turnbull’s Uluru Statement Rejection Is ‘Mean-Spirited Bastardry’ – Legal Expert.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/turnbulls-uluru-statement-rejection-mean-spirited-bastardry-legal-expert>. Wyatt, Ken. “Indigenous Australia: A New Way of Working.” 15 Sep. 2020. <https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/indigenous-australia-new-way-working>. Yunupingu, Galarrwuy. “Rom Watangu: An Indigenous Leader Reflects on a Lifetime Following the Law of the Land.” The Monthly (2016). Zillman, Stephanie. “Indigenous Advisory Body Would Be Supported by Australians, Survey Finds.” ABC News 30 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/australians-would-support-referendum-indigenous-voice-parliament/9101106>.

This chapter charts the growing capacity of the European Court to protect the rights of those who are not citizens of member states of the Council of Europe. The Court’s sustained commitment to robustly enforcing the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, and the right to a court and judicial remedy facilitated the development of three strains of cosmopolitan jurisprudence. The first operationalizes the Kantian principle of hospitality, covering expulsion, extradition, and the treatment of refugees. The second extends protections to persons whose rights have been violated by states who are not parties to the Convention, or by state parties exercising jurisdiction outside of Convention territory. The third instantiates dialogues with other treaty-based regimes when it comes to overlapping obligations to protect rights. These dialogues suggest that constitutional pluralism is an emergent property of the structure of international law beyond Europe.

Judicial review by Israel’s Supreme Court over actions of Israeli authorities in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is an important element in Israel’s legal and political control of these territories. The Occupation of Justice, Second Edition, presents a comprehensive discussion of the Court’s decisions in exercising this review. This revised and expanded edition includes updated material and analysis, as well as new chapters. Inter alia, it addresses the Court’s approach to its jurisdiction to consider petitions from residents of the Occupied Territories; justiciability of sensitive political issues; application and interpretation of the international law of belligerent occupation in general, and the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular; the relevance of international human rights law and Israeli constitutional law; the rights of Gaza residents after the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from the area; Israeli settlements and settlers; construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank; security measures, including internment, interrogation practices and punitive house demolitions; and judicial review of hostilities. The study examines the inherent tension involved in judicial review over the actions of authorities in territory whose inhabitants are not part of the political community to which the Court belongs. It argues that this tension is aggravated in the context of the West Bank by the glaring disparity between the norms of belligerent occupation and the Israeli government’s policies. The study shows that while the Court’s review has enabled many individuals to receive a remedy, it has largely served to legitimise government policies and practices in the Occupied Territories.

This chapter traces the history and development of the Oklahoma constitution. Once Oklahoma Territory was opened to settlement by whites, there were cries for statehood. But what about Indian Territory? On June 16, 1906, Congress passed the Oklahoma Enabling Act, providing for single statehood for the Twin Territories. Commissions were then created for each of the territories to form districts for the election of delegates to the state’s constitutional convention. Most of the writing of the constitution was done from November 20, 1906, to adjournment on March 15, 1907. Subsequently, the date set for voting on ratification of the proposed constitution was September 17, 1907; the constitution was easily approved. A separate vote on Prohibition for what had been Indian Territory narrowly passed. Although Oklahoma’s constitution was viewed at the time as one of the most progressive in the nation, few of its provisions were innovative. What was “innovative” about the constitution was its eclectic design. The drafters borrowed from many sources, but mostly they borrowed progressive ideas, and by combining so many provisions in one document, they did create a rather unique document. The chapter then compares Oklahoma’s constitution with other state constitutions.

This chapter studies Article XXIV of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns constitutional amendments. Section 1 gives the legislature power to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the citizens of Oklahoma and sets forth legislative direction in the first paragraph. Subject to the requirements that a legislative joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution set forth the test of the amendment and a ballot title for the election ballot, the precise form and content of the resolution is a matter for the legislature to decide. Under Section 2, which is routinely ignored, a law providing for a constitutional convention must be submitted to the people for their approval, passed by the legislature, and approved by the governor, and it must contain the makeup and procedure of the convention. Section 3 deals with the power of the initiative amendment.

This chapter traces the history of the Colorado Constitution. After some misfires for Colorado Territory, the constitution was drafted in the 1875–76 convention, approved by voters and federal authorities, and became effective when statehood was proclaimed by the President on August 1, 1876. Amendments made it one of America's longest state charters. Unique provisions define water rights, impose broad tax restrictions, forbid underground nuclear detonations, and commit redistricting of congressional and legislative seats to special commissions. Crucial tests of the constitutional system arose over public school and state government funding, municipal home rule, direct democracy, labor unrest in the mines, the Great Depression, redistricting, and coping with the 1992 tax restrictions.

Chapter 2 follows Illinois’s transition from territory to state. A territorial census was likely padded to reach the required 40,000 inhabitants. The 1818 constitutional convention wrote the state’s founding document, many of its provisions drawn from other states’ constitutions. The delegates sought to limit the governor’s role by vesting powers in the legislature, leading to an unsteady balance of governmental powers. Delegates also focused on the question of slavery, termed “indentured servitude” in the constitution and described as “voluntary.” This wording set up debate in U.S. Congress that previewed the Missouri Compromise, but ultimately the constitution was approved and Illinois became a state on December 3, 1818. The slavery debate continued in Illinois, a frontier state that blended northern and southern sensibilities.