The 2007 adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) marked a critical juncture in the area of Indigenous rights. As a nonbinding agreement, its adoption is at the discretion of each state, resulting in significant state-level variation. Importantly, within-state variations remain underexplored. These differences are potentially significant in federal, decentralized countries such as Canada. This article examines why some provinces and territories lead in implementing the key principles embedded in UNDRIP, whereas others have dragged their feet. We collected 230 Canadian regulations introduced at the subnational level between 2007 and 2023, and assessed the impact of three key variables (i.e. political ideology, resource politics and issue voting). We found that none of these variables explained within-state variations on their own. To further explore the role of these variables, we subsequently compared two provinces at different stages of the UNDRIP implementation spectrum (Québec and British Columbia).

Water-mediated claims in both international law and domestic law are often framed around, or adjudicated based on land-centred principles. In Canada, too, such claims tend to be judicially assessed through land-centric concepts. This approach has significant implications for Indigenous law and related claims to water-mediated spaces. It also has consequences for both international law and domestic law, particularly with respect to how aqua nullius and similar Eurocentric concepts are disguised and used in settler-colonial states like Canada. Accordingly, this article urges a critical engagement with Indigenous law and similar cosmologies on water in a manner that foregrounds the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and in re-reading how the UNDRIP is incorporated and implemented in Canada.