Nsw Cultural Heritage Reform: Does The Proposed Model Reflect The United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples?

Polar Record ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naohiro Nakamura

ABSTRACTThis commentary reviews Maruyama's article ‘Japan's post-war Ainu policy: why the Japanese Government has not recognised Ainu indigenous rights?’ (Maruyama 2013a), published in this journal. Maruyama criticises the government for its reluctance to enact a new Ainu law to guarantee indigenous rights, even after Japan's ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). However, in actuality, the government is searching for the foundation of new Ainu policies in the existing legal frameworks and trying to guarantee some elements of indigenous rights. Japan's case suggests the possibility of realising indigenous rights without the enactment of a specific law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Howitt

Histories of colonial plunder produced geographies that settler societies take for granted as settled. While some aspects of the conqueror/settler imaginary have been unsettled in specific cases, and through the negotiation of new instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, various national apologies and modern treaties, much unsettling remains to be done. New geographies of plunder, violence and abuse reinstate geographies of various kleptocracies across the planet, reinforcing the unnatural disasters of displacement, disfigurement and loss on many people, places and communities. This paper uses the framing offered by emergent discourses of Indigenous geographies to reconsider the task of unsettling the taken-for-granted privilege of settler dominance in Indigenous domains.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
◽  

This brief discusses legislative developments during COVID-19 in India, Indonesia, and the Philippines that undermine sustainable human-environment interactions and IPs’ and LCs’ broader enjoyment of their rights over their customary territories. While India, Indonesia and the Philippines have yet to ratify the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (ILO 169), all three countries have ratified the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Each of these countries has also promoted national-level tenure reforms over lands and forests, though their implementation has been weak.


Wajah Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 305
Author(s):  
Dony Yusra Pebrianto ◽  
Budi Ardianto ◽  
Taufan Dyusanda Putra

Internationally The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasizes respect for the local wisdom of indigenous legal communities. The selection of village heads is one of the regulatory concepts stipulated in Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages. The selection of village heads in the concept of this law is conducted simultaneously stipulated by local regulations and the procedures are specifically regulated through government regulations as stipulated in Article 31 of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages. But it turns out that in practice, especially in indigenous peoples, the deability of the village head election often clashes with the arrangement of the village head election. So in this case the formulation of the problem in this writing is how the arrangement of the rights of indigenous peoples in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the value and concept of local wisdom that applies in the selection of village heads in 5 (Five) Villages Semerap Kedepatian. The method used in this writing uses empirical juridical methods. And in this case it is concluded that UNDRIP regulates matters relating to individual rights as well as very specific collective rights sourced from indigenous peoples. In this case the State is obliged to protect or fulfill the rights of indigenous peoples including cultural heritage and their cultural manifestations including human resources and genetics. And in the indigenous people of kedepatian semerap Kerinci regency there is a customary provision where the prospective head of the village must get customary recommendations and be appointed from Depati and Nenek Mamak. The provision is considered contrary to the local Paraturan in relation to the election of the village head. So given the provisions of UNDRIP and the 1945 Constitution, the State is obliged to protect and maintain these customs given the positive impact that arises from it. So in this case the customary provisions should be regulated in the Regulation including also about the recognition of indigenous peoples. In addition, the community needs to open a paradigm on human rights in the selection of village heads in addition to the paradigm of the enforcement of customary law there needs to be flexibility from the State as long as it is not contrary to national law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document