Indigenous sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of Indigenous peoples to govern themselves, their lands, and their resources, independent of or in negotiated relation to the states that have asserted jurisdiction over the territories where they live. The term is used across multiple, sometimes overlapping registers: as a legal concept describing the residual or recognized governmental powers of Indigenous nations within domestic legal systems; as a political claim made by Indigenous peoples and their advocates regarding self-determination; and as a moral or philosophical concept rooted in pre-colonial forms of governance, law, and territorial relationship that predate the states now claiming authority over Indigenous lands. The precise scope of the term-whether it denotes full external sovereignty comparable to that of nation-states, a more limited internal or “domestic dependent” sovereignty, or a relational concept distinct from Western sovereignty altogether-is itself contested; see Indigenous Sovereignty - Indigenous Sovereignty Viewpoint pages below.

The concept arises in the context of Colonial-Native Relations, the long history of contact, conflict, treaty-making, and governance between colonizing states and Indigenous peoples, and is frequently discussed in relation to the Doctrine of Discovery, a body of international and domestic legal principles historically used by European colonial powers to assert title over lands inhabited by Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous sovereignty is addressed differently across jurisdictions. In the United States, federal Indian law recognizes tribes as possessing inherent sovereignty that predates the U.S. Constitution, subject to limitations imposed by Congress and federal courts-a status often described as “domestic dependent nationhood,” a term originating in the Marshall Trilogy of Supreme Court decisions in the 1830s. In Canada, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms “existing aboriginal and treaty rights,” and courts have developed a body of case law addressing Aboriginal title and self-government. In Australia, the 1992 *Mabo v Queensland (No 2)* decision recognized native title at common law, though Australian law has not recognized a parallel concept of inherent Indigenous sovereignty. New Zealand's framework centers on the Treaty of Waitangi (1840), whose interpretation remains a continuing site of negotiation between the Crown and Māori iwi.

Internationally, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, affirms Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, while stopping short of using the term “sovereignty” and explicitly affirming the territorial integrity of existing states. Whether this self-determination implies a right to secede or merely a right to autonomy within existing states remains disputed; see indigenous-sovereignty-self-determination-scope-debate.

Debate over the historical and legal basis of Indigenous sovereignty connects closely to disagreements over the extent of Indigenous political agency under colonial rule; see Colonial-Native Relations - Native Agency Viewpoint.

For fuller historical background, see indigenous-sovereignty-history.

• Restorationist viewpoint: Holds that Indigenous nations retain or should be restored to a sovereignty equivalent in kind to that of nation-states, including rights to independent governance, territory, and international standing, on the grounds that this sovereignty was never legitimately extinguished. See indigenous-sovereignty-restorationist-viewpoint.
• Domestic-dependent viewpoint: Holds that Indigenous sovereignty is real but inherently limited-exercised within and subordinate to the legal framework of the surrounding state, consistent with existing case law and treaty arrangements. See indigenous-sovereignty-domestic-dependent-viewpoint.
• Relational/non-Western sovereignty viewpoint: Holds that applying the Western legal concept of “sovereignty” to Indigenous governance is itself a category error, and that Indigenous self-governance is better understood through Indigenous legal and political traditions distinct from the state-centric model. See indigenous-sovereignty-relational-viewpoint.
• Integrationist/skeptical viewpoint: Holds that separate Indigenous sovereignty claims are impractical, economically counterproductive, or in tension with principles of equal citizenship, and favors policies of integration or individual rights protection over group-based sovereignty. See indigenous-sovereignty-integrationist-viewpoint.
• Land-back viewpoint: Holds that meaningful sovereignty requires the return of land and resources, not merely recognition of jurisdictional or cultural autonomy. See indigenous-sovereignty-land-back-viewpoint.

• The status of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests (2016-2017) as a sovereignty dispute between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and federal/state authorities over treaty land and water rights remains a documented point of contention. See indigenous-sovereignty-dakota-access-pipeline-controversy.
• The 2023 Australian referendum on an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament,” and its defeat, generated ongoing dispute over the appropriate institutional form of Indigenous political recognition. See indigenous-sovereignty-voice-referendum-controversy.

• History: indigenous-sovereignty-history
• Debate: indigenous-sovereignty-self-determination-scope-debate
• Viewpoint Debate: indigenous-sovereignty-restorationist-viewpoint-domestic-dependent-viewpoint-debate
• Controversy: indigenous-sovereignty-dakota-access-pipeline-controversy, indigenous-sovereignty-voice-referendum-controversy
• Related Main Topics: Colonial-Native Relations, Doctrine of Discovery

1. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831); Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
2. Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 35.
3. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia).
4. Treaty of Waitangi, 6 February 1840.
5. United Nations General Assembly, "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," A/RES/61/295 (13 September 2007).