| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,000,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥1,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
As a result of a survey, the followings were clarified. Firstly, the U.S.Supreme Court's 2000 Rice v.Cayetano decision should be seen as clarifying recent trend of reducing the separate identity of Indian law. Secondly, if the logic in the Rice case is followed, it is likely that all special treatment of the native Hawaiians will be found to violate the Fedeial Constitution. On the other hand, partly in an attempt to counter the decision, native Hawaiians themselves have since the decision intensified their lobbying of the Congress, demanding that they be given the status of a Nation with semi-sovereign powers equal to Indian tribes. They have at the same time, as part of preparation by native Hawaiians themselves for such potential recognition, begun a registiation movement to encourage the enrollment of indigenous Hawaiians as members of a potential Hawaiian Nation.
When the Ainu are compared with Hawaiians, both groups share the common problem that any special measuies on their behalf may be found to violate the principle of equality, because they have not been recognized by the central government as having any special legal status. On the other hand however, it must be said that there is a disparity in the visibility of these two groups. It must also be said that there is a diffeience in the responses of the two movements to this issue, with native Hawaiians' clearly asserting the rights and interests they seek, and taking pro-active measures in order to realize these rights. Above all, worthy of particular note is the fact that native Hawaiians are making every effort to become involved in the less than simple process of their own organization, by working together towards a solution to the problems they face, maintaining a close relationship with the State government.
|
