Federal Indian law is rooted in conflicting principles that leave the
field in a morass of doctrinal and normative incoherence. In this Comm
entary, Professor Frickey begins by criticizing two recent efforts to
bring coherence to this field One approach, which narrows the scope of
inquiry and attempts to apply non-normative doctrinal analysis, ignor
es the fictional nature of much federal Indian law doctrine and fails
to appreciate the significance of normative and historical principles
lurking behind the doctrine. The other approach, which seeks to constr
uct a single descriptive paradigm from the case law, fails because fed
eral Indian law precedents do not lend themselves to a unified theory.
Professor Frickey suggests that greater coherence and respect for bas
ic normative principles ave likely to result from conceiving of the fi
eld as involving the process of negotiation among sovereigns rather th
an of adjudication in federal court.