Abstract:
Any cross-jurisdictional comparison between countries on matters of indigenous
rights reconciliation is immediately frustrated by the innumerable and varying factors
involved. While the reasons may be varied and hard to pin down, the differences between
New Zealand and Canada’s approach to indigenous rights recognition lends itself to a
certain hypothesis. That is, that although there is an overarching similarity in the issues
and relationships involved, the characteristics of each countries' broader political and
legal systems, in particular the relationship between the executive and judicial branches
of government, have led the countries down divergent paths in terms of their approach to
indigenous rights recognition and reconciliation.1 Looked at side by side, each country
has embarked on its own model of management of indigenous relations and rights which
has led to the proliferation of certain themes and outcomes at the expense of others. An
examination of each approach exposes significant strengths and weaknesses inherent in
following one route at the expense of the other.
