Indigenat als Souveränitätsquelle? Kanada und Neuseeland im verfassungsrechtlichen Vergleich

Public International Law still grapples with the legacy of colonialism – and so do States that, as former settler colonies, have inherited ethnic, cultural and social divides. This article compares two such States, Canada and New Zealand, and their endeavours to use constitutional law as a tool for bridging the divide. In spite of shared historic roots, the constitutional orders of both States have taken different paths: while Canada has a federal system and for the most part a written constitution, unitary New Zealand's constitutional law is unwritten, with the noteworthy exception of what is perceived as its founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Nonetheless, both States have found ways to incor porate indigenous peoples and their law into their respective constitutional systems and to assimilate them to a »source of sovereignty«. While neither approach is without contradiction and their implementation does not always meet the expectations, what has been created in the »constitutional laboratories« of Canada and New Zealand might serve in the long run to inspire and benefit Public International Law as a whole.