A/HRC/21/47/Add.1 peoples’ self-government. As a general matter, the sovereignty of federally-recognized Indian tribes, as far as it goes, displaces the authority of the states over so-called Indian country, that is, reservation and other lands under Indian control. But United States courts have continued to see the inherent sovereignty of tribes, and hence their self-governance authority, as an implicitly diminished sovereignty, and this view has served to limit the powers of tribal regulatory and judicial authorities especially in relation to non-indigenous persons. Additionally, tribal sovereignty may succumb to substantial state sovereignty interests,13 and the Supreme Court has restrictively interpreted the Indian Reorganization Act to prevent many tribes from extending their sovereignty over recovered or newly acquired lands.14 53. Judicially-established limitations on tribal sovereignty are in addition to those imposed by Congress, especially under acts devised under the earlier eras of assimilation. These include the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which established paramount federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian country, whether by an indigenous or non-indigenous person; and Public Law 280 of 1953, which extended state criminal and civil jurisdiction to Indian country in specified states. 54. Especially in light of inadequate state and federal law enforcement on reservations, these jurisdictional limits imposed on indigenous tribes result in situations in which, as one tribal judge lamented, “we can’t police and punish people who come into the community and cause harm to that community and its people.” The Special Rapporteur also heard numerous frustrations based on concerns that jurisdictional limitations send the constant message to tribes that their institutions are incompetent and inferior, no matter how capable they have demonstrated themselves to be. Further impeding self-governance capacity are financial constraints. 55. It is important to note, however, that despite these impediments, many tribal governments and justice systems are gaining strength, and the Special Rapporteur was impressed by the determination of tribes to continue build their governance institutions. During the Special Rapporteur’s consultation in Oklahoma, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation put it this way: “As the Principal Chief of the largest Indian Tribe in the United States, my vision for our people is one of becoming great.” H. Recognition 56. In order for its powers of sovereignty, or self-government, to be recognized and officially functional within the United States legal system, or to be eligible for assistance designated for Indian tribes, an indigenous group must have specific recognition by the federal Government. A number of indigenous peoples, for reasons related to the same cluster of historical events that have broadly affected indigenous peoples in the country, lack such federal recognition and hence are especially disadvantaged. Several of these are tribes that were stripped of their federal status as a result of the termination policies of the 1950s. 57. Unrecognized indigenous groups have been striving to achieve federal recognition for decades, principally through an administrative process provided for this purpose by the Department of the Interior. Concerns regarding the cost and the length of the federal recognition process, and the challenges faced by lack of recognition, were repeatedly brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. Indigenous groups have invested 13 14 14 See Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001). See Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (2009).