民主憲政國家原住民族自治模式及其難題──以美國、加拿大、澳洲、紐西蘭為例

Perplexing Indigenous Self-Government within Polyethnic Liberal Democracy: The Cases of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

自由主義式民主憲政國家在調和國內多元族群平等共存之前提下，如何看待原住民族自治？以此問題為出發點，本文以聯合國原住民族權利宣言首付表決時之4個反對國：美國、加拿大、澳洲、紐西蘭為對象，介紹此4個同具英國殖民移墾歷史之普通法系國家，在原住民族自決權之保障與詮釋上採取遲疑保留態度之可能原由，並以承認原住民族部落主權之美國為比較法制之主要批評對象，後以部落主權模式、部落政府模式與共理模式等分析此4國於原住民族自治發展上之不同，評析各模式底下對原住民族自治之長遠成敗影響究竟可能產生何等影響，同時藉此點出自由主義式民主憲政國家本於平等主義價值及個人主義權利觀，在面對原住民族自治問題所可能存在之共通難題為何。

As an attempt to look into where a liberal democracy, as embracing and accommodating diverse communities, stands on the issue of indigenous selfdetermination, this Article conducted a comparative analysis on the development of indigenous self-determination in four countries: the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all are with a legal system of common-law tradition and a history of British colonial settlement. This Article seeks to unveil the possible reasons why these four countries share a common hesitation for the embodiment and interpretation of indigenous people’s right of self-determination. Focusing mainly on criticizing the basic model of self-government in the United States, which has long recognized tribal sovereignty, this Article also adopts a simple categorization, sorting the implementation of indigenous self-determination by the four countries into the tribal sovereignty model, the tribal government model, the co-management model and other practices, to point out how the different models influence the realization of indigenous self-determination in the long run. This Article also comments on how these four countries, as liberal democracies, face a problematic situation of balancing the constitutional rights based on individualism and egalitarianism and the rights of indigenous tribes and people.