Comments on: Modern Treaties vs Historical Treaties

By: How to get Sovereignty recognised in 3 steps – Thinking Sovereignty

How to get Sovereignty recognised in 3 steps – Thinking Sovereignty — Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:55:33 +0000

[…] us first attaining international diplomatic recognition will not be worth the paper it is written on. Ask the people of Kashmir who had a similar structure of treaty – the negotiated terms have since been flushed down the loo as they are […]

By: The Third Chamber: Turnbull was right – Thinking Sovereignty

The Third Chamber: Turnbull was right – Thinking Sovereignty — Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:22:56 +0000

[…] two chambers). The planned decolonisation of Australia is partly using India as a template – Makaratta itself is based on Instruments of Accession. So this reference and comparison to a “Third Chamber” may be very relevant […]

By: Constitutional Recognition – What does it mean? – Thinking Sovereignty

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:55:03 +0000

[…] to the negotiated, internationally-binding sovereign Treaty that Aboriginal people expect (unlike domestic ‘agreement-making’), or could possibly lead to outright Aboriginal independence or to a new basis for rebuilding a […]

By: Self-determination Roadmap (revised) – Thinking Sovereignty

Self-determination Roadmap (revised) – Thinking Sovereignty — Sun, 31 Jan 2021 12:48:34 +0000

[…] Modern Treaty is structurally similar to Instruments of Accession in India. They only work in a colonial federation situation where the settler-state has not yet declared independence. So – in Canada and Australia. It won’t work in New Zealand or in the United States. […]