- UID
- 477704
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-9-27
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In Winters v. United States 在W与美国打官司(1908)的案件中，最高法
(1908), the Supreme Court held 院认为，根据领地建立的条约，美国印第安
that the right to use waters flow- 人享有使用流过或邻近FB印第安保留地的
Line ing through or adjacent to the 水的权利。
(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians
by the treaty establishing the reservation.
Although this treaty did 虽然条约并未提及用水权，法院裁定，联邦
not mention water rights, the Court 政府在建立保留地时，希望公正对待印第安
(10) ruled that the federal government, 人，为其保留土地赖以生存的水。
when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with
American Indians by preserving
for them the waters without which
(15) their lands would have been use-
less. Later decisions, citing W引证，随后的决定确认了法院在以下三个
Winters, established that courts 条件时，可出于特殊目的得到保留水的联邦
can find federal rights to reserve 权力。
water for particular purposes if
(20) (1) the land in question lies within 1)有疑问的土地被专属联邦权限的领土包围；
an enclave under exclusive federal
jurisdiction, (2) the land has been 2)土地正式从联邦公共土地中收回-如根据联
formally withdrawn from federal 邦土地使用法律，从可用的联邦私人用途土
public lands — i.e., withdrawn from 地库存收回的-并作保留的；
(25) the stock of federal lands available
for private use under federal
land use laws — and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circumstances 3)情况反映了政府建立保留地时希望保存水
reveal the government 和地。
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation.水权法案及其适用情况
Some American Indian tribes 一些美国印第安部落根据他们在美国成立
have also established water rights 前传统引水及对一定水域的使用，通过法
(35) through the courts based on their 院获得了用水权。
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.不适用于第一、二条
For example, the Rio Grande 例如，当美国在1848年取得新墨西哥主权
(40) pueblos already existed when the 时，格兰德河的印第安人村庄已经存在。
United States acquired sovereignty
over New Mexico in 1848. Although 虽然他们在那时成为美国一部分，村庄的
they at that time became part of the 土地从未正式构成联邦公共土地的一部分；
United States, the pueblo lands
(45) never formally constituted a part
of federal public lands; in any 在任何事件中，没有条约、法令或执行命
event, no treaty, statute, or executive 令曾指定或把村庄作为保留地从公共土地
order has ever designated 中收回。
or withdrawn the pueblos from
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations. This fact, however, 然而这个事实没有妨碍W原则的应用。
has not barred application
of the Winters doctrine. What 什么构成保留地只是实践问题，不是法
constitutes an American Indian 律定义，印第安村庄一直被美国视为保
(55) reservation is a question of 留地。
practice, not of legal definition,
and the pueblos have always
been treated as reservations by
the United States. This pragmatic 这种实事求是的手法得到AC案的支
(60) approach is buttressed by Arizona 持，该案中，最高法院指出，所有保
v. California (1963), wherein the 留地产生的方式并不影响W原则的
Supreme Court indicated that the 执行。
manner in which any type of federal
reservation is created does not
(65) affect the application to it of the
Winters doctrine. Therefore, the 因此，村庄印第安人从1848年起优于
reserved water rights of Pueblo 其他公民享有用水权，这年里，村庄必
Indians have priority over other 以保留地来看待。
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations. 另一种保留水权的办法RG
特别套路
逻辑简图：
1P: (1908)in Winters, supreme court held that the right was reserved by treaty… Later decisions find …1), 2), 3)….
2P: some Indian tribes also established water rights… For example, RGP…. However, has not barred application of Winters. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by AVC…. Therefore, rights of P have priority over other citizen’s rights….
第一段：1908年，在某个例案中，高级法院根据一项关于建立印第安人保留区的treaty,规定联邦政府必须保证保留区内印第安人的水权。之后，又作出了详细的规定，规定在以下三种情况下联邦政府可行使该项权利：1、...2、...3、...
第二段：RG这样一个印第安地区，虽然不符合以上1、2两种情况（情况3没有讨论），但事实上也遵循了winter doctrine. 因为，尽管没有正式的文件，但RG一直都被联邦政府视为保留区....最后，还有一个1963年的法律规定联邦政府设立保留区的方式并不影响到这种保留区遵循winter doctrine，因此，最终确定了RG的水权。 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-3-21 22:44:02
希望能有NN指点一下，像这样的文章，怎么样在读不懂的情况下，尽可能提高题目的正确率。希望能有NN帮分析一下这篇文章的解题思路，不甚感激！
）
收藏
收藏
楼主
