U.N.masking American Exceptionalism: How International Frameworks Can Inform American Indian Policy

“U.N.masking American Exceptionalism: How International Frameworks Can Inform American Policy,” serves primarily to examine and criticize how American case law, such as Johnson v. M’Intosh, has been used in foreign courts to justify the Doctrine of Discovery and how, despite many other courts eventually acknowledging it as a harmful rule of law in meaningful ways, the United States has done no such thing. This Article walks through not only the legal cases both at home and abroad, but also delves into the historical background that led up to Johnson, examines the cases abroad that integrate the Doctrine of Discovery and Johnson, and then walks through the contemporary work that has been done in favor of Indigenous Peoples around the world. This work is highly critical of the apparent lack of a cross-dependent relationship between American and foreign courts in this area of law, in which the American court system has influenced the “legitimacy” of taking from Indigenous groups in other countries. In a modern society, where the harms of colonial pasts have been widely recognized, there are remedial options in which the American government–be that by legislation, diplomacy, or judicial ruling–can at least attempt to return as a global leader in a positive light rather than cling to an antiquated ideal that no longer fits into a post-colonial world.