Abstract: The British Empire was an elaborate project of systematic violence and the juridical ideal of the ‘rule of law’ was one weapon in the coloniser’s arsenal. Or at least this is a theme developed within the growing literature on Empire (e.g., Caroline Elkins, Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire (London: Penguin, 2022)). In many ways, this theme contextualises a general point advanced by certain legal philosophers—the idea that, to borrow from Professor Joseph Raz, the rule of law sharpens the knife of law but does not tell us whether its use is just or unjust. This view has not gone unchallenged. E.P. Thompson insisted that even in the face of an unjust legal system the rule of law remains an unqualified human good (a surprising conclusion for a Marxist social historian). In my presentation, I offer some reflections on competing approaches to the rule of law by drawing examples from the history of relations between the British Empire and Indigenous nations in North America. Was an intersocietal rule of law possible between such radically different societies? I consider some examples of how treaty relations may be understood as an attempt, even if flawed, at building a kind of cross-cultural rule of law. I conclude by offering some observations on how historic Crown-Indigenous treaties are relevant for the project of ‘reconciliation’ in the law of Canada today.