From the 1823-1832 the Supreme Federal Court deposited the first brick to concrete the status of

indigenous tribes. Being native Americans, they existed before the European colonizers f thus, they had
inherent and complete sovereignty as stablished the principle first time, first place. But, this complete
sovereignty was diminished by the internationally admitted Discovery Principle in the Discovery Era: the
ownership of the land goes to who discovered it and labored it, thus US inherited the title of the land from
Great Britain.

Concerning their weak power, these tribes contracted treaties with the US federal government to relinquish
their land in exchange for the federal help to maintain and develop their lives. Thus, the US federal
government has trustee responsibility to his guardians. The principle of Trust Responsibility via the contract
of tribes was established as a principle to resolve the Indian affairs. Its a kind of subordinated and
incomplete sovereignty but with autonomy in Indian affairs or tribal affairs. But, till 1932 the US federal
government has reduced this remaining autonomy of internal affairs to nothing making the indigenous
people subject to internal colonization: in 1871 the Congress abolished the right that the indigenous people
had to contract treaty with federal government and established the federal government neednt get the
consent of the tribes to deal with Indian affairs, though admitted treaties affirmed before. In 1886 the
supreme federal court affirmed that the Congress has absolute powers to limit, modify and eliminate the
power of self-determination that the tribe posse. Under a serious acts, laws and Supreme Court orders the
indigenous tribes didnt have the minimum right to control their land nor natural resources: 1930 <Indian
Removal Act> Indians were forcedly removed from their ancestral and relocated in reservation indicated by
the government; in 1887 the <Dawes General Allotment Act> divided common tribal land into allotment for
individual Indians and sell the land remained to non-Indians. However, the individual allotment was hold in
trust by BIA for 25 years. The BIA was deserved to distribute the profits of the land rent to Indians, but there
was a mess of fraud and corruption; The Indians didnt have actual juridical power neither, though there
were tribal court: it didnt have jurisdiction over crimes, non-Indians neither non-member. Actually, the
federal government had jurisdiction power over all cases that were out of state court coverage; the Indians
could not decide minimally the education of their children, they were facedly sent to boarding school, where
they are forbidden from wearing plaids, speaking tribal languages, using tribal names etc. and many
indigenous children suffered sexual, mental, physical abuse.

Thus, from my point of view, in this period, the tribal sovereignty, in the practical level, or the de facto Commented [1]:
tribal sovereignty was null, absolute no, even if we talk about autonomy. But the de jure tribal De facto, de dure, de recto sovereinty
sovereignty remains in the various treaties assigned between native tribes and the US federal government
and in the series of self-contractionary acts, laws, orders and statues. And the de recto-a moral standard,
or the inherent sovereignty, is a mysterious existence for the indigenous people, who, in the pre-
colonization era, had a totally different social system that surely cant be applied to the European standard.
But t a term perfectly created and posteriorly forged by United States.

From 1934 is a new era for native americans self-determination beginning with the <<Indian Reorganization
Act>>: the tribes can organize tribal government and create tribal constitution; they can sign contract with
mining or logging companies as permitted by the 1982 <>. But the Congress and the federal
government still hold the ultimate and absolute power: the tribal constitution should be established
according to the <<Indian Reorganization Act>>, the tribal court can only judge crimes under 1 year and
5000 dollars, as the 1986 <Indian Civil Rights> stablishes; if the tribal government wants to manage the trust
land, he must obtain permissions from the BIA, because the federal government holds the title of the trust
land, whats more, the trust land are fractioned, rather than a whole part; They can manage tribal schools,
but still owned by federal government. Though the tribes have autonomy to self-determination, this
sovereignty is controlled by the congress and federal government. Thus, cant be compared in absolute with
the sovereignty that states hold.

In 1832 the Supreme Federal Court hold that states cant interfere into tribal affairs without federal Commented [2]:
permission. And now there are some federal permissions: the 208 stablished that 44 states can apply state
criminal and civil jurisdiction in reservation land, which means that state court can judge Indians while tribal
court can only judge cases occurs in reservation between Indians, now applied in 80% of all the indigenous
reservations; tribes dont need to pay trust land taxes to state, but, if the land is private owned, the owners
should pay tax to states and dont need to pay reservation though the tribal government provide him with
some services; the gaming ultimately has become one of the most prosperous industry for tribal
government, but the < 1988 imposed restrictions on the gamings most profitable,
and holds that the tribal government can only manage these gamings it sign contract with the state. Some
states are resistant to negotiate with tribal governments and others requires share the profits. So, we can
see, in this government-to-government relationship between indigenous reservations and states, the latter
has more authority to interference in Indian affairs. The only remedy that the indigenous countries can
use is the principle of +: depend wholly on the explanation of Congress of
Supreme Federal Court.

Internationally, there is no laws about indigenous peoples right to self-determination. There are always
dispute about the definitions of peoples and self-determination. The 1945 the Charter of United States
mentioned that the peoples have right to self-determination, but doesnt explain the definition of peoples,
but adds that whatever actions that threatens the territorial and political integrity should be condemned,
which indicates the impossibility of native Americans to found their own countryinherent sovereignty.
The 2007 United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People, definite the indigenous peoples
self-determination, but US resisted to affirm it till 2010. Yet, the US government declared its doubt about
the term self-determination and that US government would like to consult the opinions of tribal leaders but
doesnt necessarily obtain there agreement (trust relashenship/ de jure sovereinty) before the actions
addressed in those consultations are taken, which denies various articles specially about the land and Commented [3]:
natural resources, the material and cultural property for the indigenous tribes. So, we can see, that US
continues stressing the uniqueness of American created and forged tribal severity.

So, Id say that from 30th till now, the de facto tribal sovereignty or self-determination isnt fake, though
very limited and substantial, the indigenous tribes can manage Indian issues to some extent. The various
treaties signed before 1871 are being interpreted constantly and differently in every encounter of
indigenous people with congress, federal government, supreme federal court and local courts, which
contribute to new changes in the de jure tribal sovereignty; the de recto, inherent sovereignty, though
imposed onto native Americans by the colonizers, is being used as maybe a ultimate dream or motive by
the indigenous people to recover the loss, though, the international laws or conventions may not permit it.
And, actually, impossible and unrealistic, at least now, for the native Americans, considering their politic-
economic power and longtime assimilation imposed by US.
Finally, as, my personal conclusion, I wont say that the tribal sovereignty is fake, though its a term imposed
to the native Americans, it used to be null, though its very limited. Because the native Americans are using
the de jure tribal sovereignty, and changing both the de jure and the facto one.