This paper uses ideas of legal pluralism to explore how Indigenous law might coexist with and productively challenge non-Indigenous planning systems. We ground our arguments in an exploration of the planning principles embedded in Haudenosaunee law, comparing it to non-Indigenous notions of the public interest to identify points of allyship and incommensurability. Instead of using Indigenous planning principles to address the deficiencies of the public interest, we argue for a legally pluralistic approach that encourages ongoing interaction, while still respecting the sovereignty of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of articulating the role and purpose of planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turriff et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: