In April 1996, First Nations took a step toward self-determination when Canada was put on trail before the First Nations International Court of Justice. In a gathering that was distinctly rooted in the spiritual practices of First Nations, representatives from Aboriginal Nations around the world came together for the first time in a formal court setting to articulate the legal principles upon which the societies of the First Peoples are based. While there have been, over the past two hundred years, many opportunities for the settler courts to postulate on the rights of First Nations, thier jurisprudence is hampered by a world view which seekd to prtect their position of power by minimizing the nature of the relationship to the original societies. In so doing, the Candian Courts have assumed that they can justly unilaterally pronounce on such matters as the meaning of treaties between First Naitons and the Crwon, and the intentions of the original signatories by refernce solely to their own principles of law. As a result, First Nations who attempt to assert rights before the settler courts are immediately disadvantages by the overwhelmingly negative legal precendents, the evidence rules which favour Aexpert anthropological evidence over the evidence of First Naitons orators, and an onus to establish, within these limitations, that they have legal claims to the land base.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada expose the futility of First Nations pursuing justice before that institution. Over the years, the court has begrudgingly acknowledged aboriginal and treaty rights in various cases. However, within the last year, that Court has rendered a number of decisions on land rights, aboriginsl fishing rights and rights to regulate gaming which demonstrate the degree of midunderstanding characteristic of the Canadian legal system. The cases, which include Van der Peet v. the Queen, which raised the question of First Nations to fish commercially, and Pamajewan v. the Queen, which addressed the right of First Nations to carry on gaming activities in contravention of provinicial laws, show the limitation of the courts to address matters that involve competing commercial interests. In both cases, the court found against the First Nation individual who claimed the right to carry on a commercial activity based on aboriginal rights. From these judgements, it is apparent that the court only recognizes rights as Aaboriginal rights when they conform to a static image of Indians as portrayed by non-aboriginal historians. these and earlier decisions, such as the Apsassin case which involed claims of aboriginal title, show that the Court will ony acknowledge even the most basic rights of First Nations where the aboriginal nation first prove it continuouslyinhabited theit territories, that the rights claimed are Aintegral to their culture, and that, at time of contact, they were exercising that rights (in substantially the same manner).

Depsite the fact that the colonizing nation entered into treaties with many indigenous nations, the Courts do not recognize these as international treaties. This is not surprising, since a finding that First Nations Treaties are international treaties would significantly after the status of the Indigenous signatories. Their status would no longer be that of inferior people, but they would be undisputed equals capable pf challenging the claims of Canada to the land and resources. It would change the presumptions that currently demand First Nations to prove rights to land and resources, and would shift the onus onto Canada to show how it can lay claim to the lands and resources of the First Nations.

Canada's legal systems is therefore structures to favour the Canadian government in claims which involve First Nations. The courts impose foreign standards and an alien world view onto First Nations. Thus, unless the First Nations' behaviour corresponds with the pervasive world view, they are presumed primitive, lawless and less deserving of rights. In short, the colonizer's courts only admit the rights of First Nations in gestures of generosity and Ahumanity. Where a First Nation's right could impact on the rights of other Canadians, particularly if it involves the defence of an economic position, as illustrate in the recent cases involving commercial fishing, taxition and gaming, the First Nation's rights is expendable.

Although there is an international justice system, that system is equally exclusive of indigenous people. First Nations are not recognized as nations within the context of the United Nations. They must therfore exhaust all domestic remediesa and seek the cooperation of a colonizing state in order to appear before the International Court of Justice. Since that court is primarily a product of the commercially dominant nation states, indigenous people have no independent access to it and could expect that court to maintain the same biases as the governments that support it.

Against this backup, the need for an aboriginal court to fill the vacuum in both domestic and international jurisprudence is apparent. At its inaugural sitting, the First Nations International Court of Justice, which was snubbed by Canadian officialdom, came together as an aboriginal judicial forum to consider whether a case could be made that Canada is breaching First Nation laws, international laws and treaty provisions. The Court, which consisits of seven judges from indigenous nations across Turtle Island (North America) and aorund the world, listened from the four directions of Turtle Island.

A team of First Nations acholars, led by reowned international aboriginal advocate and citizen of the Cree Nation, Sharon Venne, presented the case for the First Nations. In her opening remarks, Ms. Venne pointed to the inadequacy of the existing legal system in dealing woth First Nations issues. AFor too long when people talk about indigenous law, she said. AThey are talking about the colonizer's legal system .... What we need to do is ... to bring the indigenous legal system to the front. We need ... that as the basis if we are going to ... find some measure of justice for the future generations.

Witnesses from the four directions of Turtle Island shared the teachings of their elders. They provided a description of the First Nations justice systems which have been over-ridden by current judicial doctrines. Before the panel of Atruth seekers, elders, and a room filled with witnesses, the speakers testified as to their place on the great Turtle Island and their relationship with the newcomers.

While the event was not given wide attention by the main-stream media or organizations, the fact that it happened at all was, in itself, a fulfilling of prophecy, and an act of both empowerment and resoundind self-assertion. It was made possible by the contributions of those who dared to dream a common vission of justice for indigenous nations. For those who have longed for a time when indigenous people can stand before a forum that has a true appreciation of their history and place, the First Nations International Court of Justice provides that forum. Neither the honourable Elders nor the Truth Seekers sought the support or approval of the government of Canada. It was not necessary. The court's authority depends on the support of the First Nations rather than the approval of Canada. Its impact will also depend on the First Nations.

With the current focus on the Royal Commission of Aboriginal People's report, which advocates a justice system for Aboriginal people, the First Nations's International Court serves as concrete example of an independent indigneous judicial institution. First Nation's in Canada can await the implementation of a system the accords with the existing Canadian system, but for those who regonize the inherent limitations of the Canadian system, the First Nation's International Court will provide a more appropriate point of reference. Moreover, advocates who seek to present cases before the Canadian courts will be hard pressed to find more authoritative interpretations of indigenous court. Whatever its future, for those who carry the responsibility of ensuring justice for the future generations, the First Nations International Court of Justice takes us a step further toward that goal.