[求助]gwd10(25-28)有段话没读懂

ztlbox

这篇文章有几个地方没理解，郁闷。xdjm多帮忙，先谢谢

In Winters v. United States

(1908), the Supreme Court held

that the right to use waters flow-

ing through or adjacent to the

(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation

was reserved to American Indians

by the treaty establishing the reservation.

Although this treaty did

not mention water rights, the Court

(10) ruled that the federal government,

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

Winters, established that courts

can find federal rights to reserve

water for particular purposes if

(20) (1) the land in question lies within

an enclave under exclusive federal

jurisdiction, (2) the land has been

formally withdrawn from federal

public lands — i.e., withdrawn from

(25) the stock of federal lands available

for private use under federal

land use laws — and set aside or

reserved, and (3) the circumstances

reveal the government

(30) intended to reserve water as well

as land when establishing the

reservation.

Some American Indian tribes

have also established water rights

(35) through the courts based on their

traditional diversion and use of

certain waters prior to the United

States’ acquisition of sovereignty.

For example, the Rio Grande

(40) pueblos already existed when the

United States acquired sovereignty

over New Mexico in 1848. Although

they at that time became part of the

United States, the pueblo lands

(45) never formally constituted a part

of federal public lands; in any

event, no treaty, statute, or executive

order has ever designated

or withdrawn the pueblos from

(50) public lands as American Indian

reservations. This fact, however,

has not barred application

of the Winters doctrine. What

constitutes an American Indian

(55) reservation is a question of

practice, not of legal definition,

and the pueblos have always

been treated as reservations by

the United States. This pragmatic

(60) approach is buttressed by Arizona

v. California (1963), wherein the

Supreme Court indicated that the

manner in which any type of federal

reservation is created does not

(65) affect the application to it of the

Winters doctrine. Therefore, the

reserved water rights of Pueblo

Indians have priority over other

citizens’ water rights as of 1848,

(70) the year in which pueblos must

be considered to have become reservations.

established that courts

can find federal rights to reserve

water for particular purposes

指段话是指联邦政府有权力保留用水权在以下的情形下，然后文章列出了3种情况，也就是说只有这3种情况下，政府才有权利reserve water.

下一段就开始有点不明白了，

the Rio Grande

(40) pueblos already existed when the

United States acquired sovereignty

over New Mexico in 1848.

这个pueblos在美国得到新墨西哥之前就存在了，明显不符合上一段的三个条件，联邦政府当然没有权利要求他们怎么怎么样。

所以这里就不明白了，后面的转折：This fact, however,

has not barred application

of the Winters doctrine

好象本来不应该给印第安人这个权力似的，这个小破规定不是对印第安人保留地说的吗， Rio Grande 不算是保留地吧，那和这条规定也没什么关系呀？

不知道我什么地方理解错了，请多指教。

还有，第一段的三条原则是说在这样的情况下，政府有权利用水，还是说政府有权利给印第安人用水，还是说印第安人有权用水？

彻底弧度了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-5 0:50:40编辑过]

携隐

1.规定印第安人可以优先用水

2.为什么呢?因为条约虽然没有明确说,但默认条约的出台也承认了他们优先用水权(因为不能用的话他们的土地使用会减少)

3.这个case被另外一个东东cite了,用来作什么呢?用来确立用水的三原则.

4.根据以上原则,本来RG是不被保护的.但他还是适用这个条约

5.why可以适用条约?原来美国的领土是"实用主义的",不是法律规定是就是,而是实际上处在美国境内它就是领土(你可以在后面找到这段实用主义的解释)

6.长期以来,美国一直把RG当做是自己的保护区

7.所以,RG的用水权从1848年就得到了保证(1848年被认为是RG从实际上成为美国领土的那一年)

水平有限,无法直译,以上是大概的意思.不好意思了.

fatlara

555总算明白这篇文章的结构和内容了~

谢谢携隐mm

很清楚~

carcar

在winter一案中，法庭认为Fort Berthold Indian Reservation在被reserved成保留地（established by treaty）时有水权，虽然在treaty中没有明确提到水权，但是法庭认为联邦政府在创建保留地时，intended to preserve水权给indian american。在3种条件下，政府具有分配水权for particular purpose的权利。。1政府对该片土地具有jurisdiction。2。这片土地从public land中割出来。（则不属于public land了。政府就有权利了）3保留地情况下。（这三点就是所谓的winter dotrine）

有一些indian tribes用其他方法也得到了水权。(即不是建reservation的方法)例如Rio Grande以下就说 这个rio grande不符合那3种情况，也得到了水权。winter dotrine在rio grande这个例子上是可以实行的。因为实际上，虽然它没有形式上被任命为reservation。实质上已经是reservation。所以这个tribe作为reservation。获得了水权。

jessie0317

FINALLY!

道光

看了各位解答，终于明白了。。。

就是说，

按照第一段3个条件，以及第二段说来说去那么多，就是印证一点：RG是保留区，而按法律（也就是三个条件的最后一条以及后来的AC case)来说政府对保留区是享有用水权的。而实际上，RG从1848年来一直拥有用水权，政府并未从它手中接管用水权。

于是可以这么说，从1848年来，RG的用水权相对其他citizen来讲，就是一种priority----也就是文章最后一句话的意思。。。。

草稿纸

哈，第1页留名