Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 5
In international law, conquest is recognized as a legitimate means for a state to acquire territory.
Answer: True
Conquest, alongside cession by agreement and occupation of *terra nullius*, is recognized as a historical means by which states could acquire territory in international law, although its legitimacy is subject to modern international norms and human rights considerations.
The foundational papal bulls cited for the doctrine of discovery were issued in the 17th century.
Answer: False
The foundational papal bulls cited for the doctrine of discovery, such as *Dum Diversas*, *Romanus Pontifex*, and *Inter caetera*, were issued in the 15th century, during the early Age of Discovery, not the 17th century.
France and England in the 16th century accepted papal bulls as the primary authority for granting them title to discovered lands.
Answer: False
France and England in the 16th century largely disputed the authority of papal bulls to grant title to lands, asserting their own rights based on discovery and occupation rather than papal decree.
Hugo Grotius argued that the concept of discovery granted European nations the right to claim inhabited lands.
Answer: False
Hugo Grotius, in his work *De Jure Belli ac Pacis* (1625), argued that the concept of discovery applied only to things that belonged to no one (*res nullius*), thereby implying it did not grant rights over lands already inhabited by Indigenous peoples.
European states used symbolic rituals like raising flags and erecting monuments solely to assert ownership, without any practical legal basis.
Answer: False
European states employed symbolic rituals, such as raising flags and erecting monuments, not solely for assertion, but as a means to notify other European states of their discoveries and claims. These acts served a practical legal purpose within the framework of international law governing territorial acquisition among European powers.
European monarchs typically issued charters to empower grantees to represent the Crown and acquire property in non-Christian territories.
Answer: True
European monarchs frequently issued charters to grantees, empowering them to act on behalf of the Crown in acquiring property and establishing governance in non-Christian territories, often based on the principle of discovery.
European powers consistently used a single, unified legal rationale to justify their territorial claims.
Answer: False
European powers often employed multiple, sometimes contradictory, legal rationales to justify their territorial claims, adapting their arguments to suit specific political and legal contexts and to counter rival European claims.
The papal bull *Sublimis Deus* (1537) affirmed Indigenous liberty and property rights, contradicting the doctrine of discovery.
Answer: True
The papal bull *Sublimis Deus* (1537) is significant as it affirmed the liberty and property rights of Indigenous peoples, thereby contradicting the principles underlying the doctrine of discovery, which often sought to dispossess them.
Which of the following is NOT listed as a generally recognized means by which a state can acquire territory in international law?
Answer: Discovery alone, without subsequent occupation
While discovery could initiate a claim, it was generally not considered sufficient on its own to acquire territory in international law; it typically required subsequent occupation. Cession, occupation of *terra nullius*, and conquest are recognized means.
The historical origin of the doctrine of discovery is often traced back to which century and type of documents?
Answer: 15th century, through papal bulls issued during the Age of Discovery.
The doctrine of discovery's historical origins are commonly traced to 15th-century papal bulls, such as *Romanus Pontifex* and *Inter caetera*, which authorized European exploration and conquest of non-Christian lands.
Which papal bull, issued in 1493, is cited as having divided newly discovered non-Christian lands between Spain and Portugal?
Answer: Inter caetera
The papal bull *Inter caetera*, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493, is famously cited for dividing newly discovered non-Christian territories between Spain and Portugal.
What was the stance of the French king regarding papal authority and discovered lands in the 16th century?
Answer: He argued that popes held spiritual jurisdiction but could not distribute land.
The French king maintained that while popes possessed spiritual jurisdiction, they lacked the authority to distribute land, and that mere discovery did not constitute possession or grant title.
Which legal theorist argued that discovery applied only to things that belonged to no one, implying it did not grant rights over inhabited lands?
Answer: Hugo Grotius
Hugo Grotius, in his work *De Jure Belli ac Pacis* (1625), argued that the concept of discovery applied only to things that belonged to no one (*res nullius*), thereby implying it did not grant rights over lands already inhabited by Indigenous peoples.
What was the purpose of symbolic rituals like raising flags or erecting monuments used by European states?
Answer: To notify other European states of their discoveries and claims.
European states used symbolic rituals, such as raising flags and erecting monuments, primarily to notify other European powers of their discoveries and claims, serving as a formal assertion of possession within the European legal framework.
European monarchs often issued charters to grantees to empower them to do which of the following in non-Christian territories?
Answer: Represent the Crown and acquire property.
European monarchs frequently issued charters empowering grantees to represent the Crown, establish governance, and acquire property in non-Christian territories, often based on the principle of discovery.
What legal strategy did European powers frequently employ regarding their territorial claims?
Answer: Adopting multiple, sometimes contradictory, legal rationales.
European powers often utilized multiple, and sometimes conflicting, legal rationales to justify their territorial claims, adapting their arguments strategically to suit specific contexts and rivalries.
Which legal theorist, writing in the 18th century, distinguished between effectively occupied lands and unsettled lands of nomads, considering the latter open to colonization?
Answer: Emer de Vattel
Emer de Vattel, an 18th-century legal theorist, distinguished between effectively occupied lands and unsettled lands of nomads, suggesting the latter were open to colonization.
Chief Justice John Marshall introduced the doctrine of discovery into United States municipal law in the Supreme Court case *Johnson v. McIntosh* in 1823.
Answer: True
The provided materials confirm that Chief Justice John Marshall formally articulated and introduced the doctrine of discovery into United States municipal law through his opinion in the landmark Supreme Court case *Johnson v. McIntosh* in 1823.
According to the doctrine of discovery, the discovering European nation gained the sole right to acquire land from Indigenous inhabitants, but Indigenous peoples retained full sovereignty.
Answer: False
While the doctrine of discovery granted the discovering European nation the exclusive right to acquire land from Indigenous inhabitants, it simultaneously diminished Indigenous peoples' sovereignty and their right to sell land to other European powers, thereby not retaining their full sovereignty.
Thomas Jefferson asserted the applicability of the doctrine of discovery to the United States in 1792.
Answer: True
In 1792, while serving as U.S. Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson asserted that the doctrine of discovery constituted applicable international law for the United States.
The *Johnson v. McIntosh* case is argued by some scholars to have been the result of collusive lawsuits orchestrated by land speculators.
Answer: True
Certain legal scholars contend that the *Johnson v. McIntosh* case may have originated from collusive lawsuits, where land speculators allegedly manipulated the legal process to achieve a favorable ruling that would validate their claims.
In *Johnson v. McIntosh*, the conflicting land claims stemmed from purchases made directly from the United States government.
Answer: False
The conflicting land claims in *Johnson v. McIntosh* arose from one claim based on a purchase from the Piankeshaw tribes and another based on a subsequent grant from the United States government, illustrating the complex chain of title issues.
Chief Justice John Marshall cited papal bulls like *Romanus Pontifex* as evidence for the 'universal recognition' of the discovery doctrine's principles.
Answer: True
In his opinion for *Johnson v. McIntosh*, Chief Justice Marshall referenced historical documents, including papal bulls such as *Romanus Pontifex*, as evidence supporting the widespread acceptance and 'universal recognition' of the principles underlying the doctrine of discovery among European nations.
What is the primary definition of the 'discovery doctrine' as introduced into United States municipal law?
Answer: An interpretation of international law from the Age of Discovery, granting the discovering European nation title against other European nations, subject to Indigenous occupancy.
The doctrine of discovery, as incorporated into U.S. law, is understood as an interpretation of international law from the Age of Discovery that granted the discovering European nation title against other European nations, while acknowledging Indigenous peoples' right of occupancy.
In which landmark Supreme Court case did Chief Justice John Marshall formally introduce the doctrine of discovery into United States municipal law?
Answer: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)
Chief Justice John Marshall formally introduced the doctrine of discovery into United States municipal law in his opinion for the Supreme Court case *Johnson v. McIntosh* in 1823.
According to the doctrine of discovery as formulated by John Marshall, what specific right did the discovering European nation gain over newly discovered lands?
Answer: The sole right to acquire the soil from Indigenous inhabitants and establish settlements.
As formulated by Chief Justice Marshall in *Johnson v. McIntosh*, the discovering European nation gained the sole right to acquire the soil from Indigenous inhabitants and establish settlements, while Indigenous peoples retained a right of occupancy.
When did Thomas Jefferson assert that the doctrine of discovery was applicable international law for the United States?
Answer: 1792
In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson asserted that the doctrine of discovery constituted applicable international law for the newly formed United States.
Which of the following was NOT one of the key points outlined by Chief Justice John Marshall in *Johnson v. McIntosh* regarding the discovery doctrine?
Answer: Indigenous peoples retained full sovereignty and the right to sell land to any nation.
A key point in Marshall's formulation was that Indigenous peoples' sovereignty and rights to sell land were diminished, not retained in full. The other options accurately reflect points made in the decision.
What is the argument made by some scholars regarding the *Johnson v. McIntosh* case?
Answer: It was orchestrated through collusive lawsuits by land speculators.
Certain legal scholars contend that the *Johnson v. McIntosh* case may have originated from collusive lawsuits, where land speculators allegedly manipulated the legal process to achieve a favorable ruling that would validate their claims.
In the *Johnson v. McIntosh* case, what was the basis for the conflicting land claims?
Answer: One claim was from a purchase from the Piankeshaw tribes, the other from a grant by the United States.
The conflicting land claims in *Johnson v. McIntosh* arose from one claim based on a purchase from the Piankeshaw tribes and another based on a subsequent grant from the United States government, illustrating the complex chain of title issues.
According to John Marshall's decision in *Johnson v. McIntosh*, how did the United States ultimately acquire title to land?
Answer: Through the principle of discovery and possession, inherited from Great Britain.
Marshall determined that the United States acquired ultimate title to lands through the principle of discovery and possession, a right inherited from Great Britain following the American Revolution.
In *Johnson v. McIntosh*, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Indigenous peoples retained full sovereignty and ownership rights over their lands after European discovery.
Answer: False
In *Johnson v. McIntosh*, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that while Indigenous peoples retained a right of occupancy, their sovereignty and ownership rights were significantly diminished by the doctrine of discovery, which granted the discovering European nation the ultimate title and the exclusive right to acquire the land.
In *Worcester v. Georgia* (1832), Chief Justice Marshall clarified that discovery granted the discovering nation absolute ownership, extinguishing all Indigenous rights.
Answer: False
In *Worcester v. Georgia* (1832), Chief Justice Marshall clarified that the right of discovery primarily conferred an exclusive right of preemption between European powers, not absolute ownership that extinguished all Indigenous rights. He emphasized that Indigenous nations retained their own distinct political communities and rights of occupancy.
The Supreme Court in *Cherokee Nation v. Georgia* (1831) recognized the Cherokee Nation as a fully sovereign entity with standing to sue any state.
Answer: False
In *Cherokee Nation v. Georgia* (1831), the Supreme Court characterized the Cherokee Nation as a 'domestic dependent nation,' which limited its legal standing and capacity to sue states in federal court, thereby not recognizing it as a fully sovereign entity in that context.
Later Supreme Court cases between 1836 and 1842 effectively overturned the *Worcester v. Georgia* ruling regarding Indigenous sovereignty.
Answer: True
Following the *Worcester v. Georgia* decision, a series of Supreme Court cases between 1836 and 1842 (including Mitchel I, Fernandez, Clark, Mitchel II, and Martin) significantly curtailed the impact of *Worcester*, effectively restoring the principles established in *Johnson v. McIntosh* and diminishing the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty.
The *Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe* (1979) case ruled that tribes had jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians.
Answer: False
The Supreme Court case *Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe* (1979) ruled that tribal courts generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, a decision that has had significant implications for tribal sovereignty and law enforcement.
The discovery doctrine was last cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2005 case *City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York*.
Answer: True
The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent citation of the discovery doctrine occurred in the 2005 case *City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York*, where it was referenced in the majority opinion.
How did Chief Justice Marshall re-interpret the discovery doctrine in *Worcester v. Georgia* (1832) compared to *Johnson v. McIntosh*?
Answer: He clarified that discovery granted the sole right of preemption between colonizing powers, not absolute ownership.
In *Worcester v. Georgia*, Marshall clarified that the right of discovery primarily conferred an exclusive right of preemption between colonizing powers, not absolute ownership that extinguished all Indigenous rights, emphasizing Indigenous sovereignty and occupancy rights.
What was the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling in *Cherokee Nation v. Georgia* (1831)?
Answer: It characterized the Cherokee Nation as a 'domestic dependent nation,' limiting their legal standing.
In *Cherokee Nation v. Georgia* (1831), the Supreme Court classified the Cherokee Nation as a 'domestic dependent nation,' which restricted their ability to sue states in federal court and impacted their perceived sovereignty.
Which of the following cases, decided between 1836 and 1842, helped restore the rule established in *Johnson v. McIntosh* after *Worcester v. Georgia*?
Answer: The source mentions multiple cases like Mitchel I, Fernandez, Clark, Mitchel II, and Martin.
Following *Worcester v. Georgia*, a series of Supreme Court cases between 1836 and 1842 (including Mitchel I, Fernandez, Clark, Mitchel II, and Martin) effectively restored the principles established in *Johnson v. McIntosh*, thereby diminishing the impact of *Worcester*.
The *Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe* (1979) Supreme Court case primarily addressed which issue concerning tribal jurisdiction?
Answer: Tribal jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians.
The Supreme Court case *Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe* (1979) ruled that tribal courts generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
In the Canadian case *St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R* (1888), the Privy Council found that native land rights derived directly from the doctrine of discovery as articulated by John Marshall.
Answer: False
In the Canadian case *St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R* (1888), the Privy Council determined that Indigenous land rights in Canada derived from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, rather than directly from the doctrine of discovery as articulated by John Marshall in the U.S. context.
The Supreme Court of Canada in *Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General)* (1973) affirmed that Indigenous peoples held an aboriginal title originating from European discovery.
Answer: False
The Supreme Court of Canada in *Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General)* (1973) affirmed that Indigenous peoples held an aboriginal title that originated from their prior occupation and organization of the land, not from European discovery.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in 2014 that the doctrine of *terra nullius* was consistently applied in Canadian law.
Answer: False
In the 2014 case *Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia*, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the doctrine of *terra nullius* (the idea that land was empty and belonged to no one) was never applied in Canada, thereby refuting its consistent application in Canadian law.
In the Canadian case *St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R* (1888), the Privy Council ultimately found that Indigenous land rights in Canada derived from which source?
Answer: The Royal Proclamation of 1763.
In the Canadian case *St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R* (1888), the Privy Council determined that Indigenous land rights in Canada derived from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, rather than directly from the doctrine of discovery as articulated by John Marshall in the U.S. context.
What significant affirmation did the Supreme Court of Canada make in the *Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General)* case (1973)?
Answer: Indigenous peoples held an aboriginal title originating from their prior occupation of the land.
The Supreme Court of Canada in *Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General)* (1973) affirmed that Indigenous peoples held an aboriginal title that originated from their prior occupation and organization of the land, not from European discovery.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in *Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia* (2014), what is the status of the *terra nullius* concept in Canada?
Answer: It never applied in Canada.
In the 2014 case *Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia*, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the doctrine of *terra nullius* (the idea that land was empty and belonged to no one) was never applied in Canada.
The doctrine of discovery is a universally accepted and undisputed principle of modern international law.
Answer: False
The doctrine of discovery is a highly contested principle in modern international law, subject to significant criticism and legal challenges regarding its legitimacy and application.
Spanish theologians Francisco de Vitoria and Domingo de Soto fully supported the claims based on discovery and papal grants for European powers.
Answer: False
Contrary to fully supporting such claims, Spanish theologians Francisco de Vitoria and Domingo de Soto critically examined the legitimacy of territorial acquisition based solely on discovery or papal grants, questioning whether these provided valid title to lands already inhabited by Indigenous peoples.
Critics of Marshall's formulation in *Johnson v. McIntosh* argue that he overlooked evidence of European settlers acknowledging Indigenous land rights.
Answer: True
A significant criticism leveled against Chief Justice Marshall's reasoning in *Johnson v. McIntosh* is that he potentially overlooked or downplayed historical evidence indicating that European settlers and colonial powers did, in fact, acknowledge and respect Indigenous land rights, often through treaties or purchases.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007 and addresses Indigenous rights to their lands.
Answer: True
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007, explicitly addresses and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples concerning their lands, territories, and resources.
The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) has supported the doctrine of discovery as a valid basis for international law.
Answer: False
The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) has actively condemned the doctrine of discovery, characterizing it as a violation of Indigenous peoples' human rights and calling for redress and its removal from legal frameworks.
The Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine of discovery in 2023, stating it is not part of Catholic Church teaching.
Answer: True
In March 2023, the Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine of discovery, issuing a statement that it is 'not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.'
In November 2016, clergy publicly burned copies of the papal bull *Inter caetera* during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
Answer: True
During the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in November 2016, clergy members burned copies of the papal bull *Inter caetera* as a symbolic act of protest against the doctrine of discovery.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada have endorsed the doctrine of discovery.
Answer: False
Both the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada have repudiated the doctrine of discovery and called for its removal from laws and policies.
How did Spanish theologians like Francisco de Vitoria challenge the doctrine of discovery?
Answer: They questioned whether mere discovery or papal grants provided legitimate title to lands already inhabited by Indigenous peoples.
Spanish theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria questioned the legitimacy of European claims based solely on discovery or papal grants, arguing that these did not grant valid title to lands already possessed by Indigenous peoples.
What is a key criticism leveled against Chief Justice John Marshall's formulation of the discovery doctrine in *Johnson v. McIntosh*?
Answer: He misinterpreted the doctrine as granting exclusive rights rather than an exclusive right to negotiate treaties.
A significant criticism is that Marshall's formulation in *Johnson v. McIntosh* may have misinterpreted the doctrine as granting exclusive rights to land rather than an exclusive right for the discovering nation to negotiate treaties with Indigenous inhabitants.
Which international declaration, adopted in 2007, addresses the rights of Indigenous peoples concerning their lands?
Answer: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007, addresses and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples concerning their lands, territories, and resources.
How has the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) addressed the doctrine of discovery?
Answer: By condemning it as a violation of Indigenous human rights and calling for redress.
The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) has actively condemned the doctrine of discovery, characterizing it as a violation of Indigenous peoples' human rights and calling for redress and its removal from legal frameworks.
Which major Christian denominations have formally repudiated the doctrine of discovery?
Answer: The Unitarian Universalist Association
The Unitarian Universalist Association is among several Christian denominations, including the US Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, that have formally repudiated the doctrine of discovery.
What was the Vatican's official repudiation of the doctrine of discovery in March 2023 based upon?
Answer: The 1537 papal bull *Sublimis Deus*, which affirmed Indigenous liberty and property rights.
The Vatican's March 2023 repudiation of the doctrine of discovery referenced the 1537 papal bull *Sublimis Deus*, which affirmed Indigenous liberty and property rights, as a basis for its stance against the doctrine.
What action did clergy take in November 2016 as a protest against the doctrine of discovery?
Answer: They publicly burned copies of the papal bull *Inter caetera*.
In November 2016, clergy members burned copies of the papal bull *Inter caetera* during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests as a symbolic act against the doctrine of discovery.
What have Canadian commissions, such as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, recommended regarding the doctrine of discovery?
Answer: That it be removed from laws and policies.
Commissions like the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada have recommended that the doctrine of discovery be removed from Canadian laws and policies.