Decolonizing Self-Determination: Haudenosaunee Passports and Negotiated Sovereignty

2021 ◽  
pp. 135406612110247
Author(s):  
Sheryl R. Lightfoot

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognises both Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and simultaneously offers protections in regard to states’ right to sovereignty and territorial integrity vis-à-vis Indigenous peoples’ claims. Often, this is considered an internal inconsistency of the UNDRIP, and another common critique is that Indigenous peoples were only recognised as having a diminished right to self-determination, which is less than what everyone else enjoys. This article stands in contrast to these two lines of critique, arguing that the UNDRIP’s articulation of self-determination is potentially ushering in a broadening, and possible reshaping, of self-determination, which has been increasingly decoupled from singular Westphalian notions of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘territoriality’ in ways that require ongoing negotiation between peoples and states. This case study of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s issuance and use of their passports, based on original fieldwork including a set of qualitative interviews with key informants, demonstrates how the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is pushing the practice and understanding of self-determination in multiple, new directions to include plural sovereignties in deeply significant ways concerning International Relations in both theory and in practice.

Author(s):  
Hohmann Jessie

This chapter focuses on the rights to identity, existence, and non-assimilation in Articles 7(2), 8, and 43, which together enshrine rights to the protection of indigenous peoples' continued survival and existence, both physically as individuals and as cultural entities in accordance with levels of human dignity and well-being. Indigenous peoples pressed for the inclusion of such principles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the recognition that pre-existing international, regional, and national laws had failed to protect their survival as communities with distinct cultures, or recognise them as distinct peoples. The three provisions studied in this chapter reflect this central concern of indigenous group/cultural survival and flourishing as peoples. As such, the final agreed text of Articles 7(2), 8, and 43 must be seen as containing norms aimed at the development of existing international law, which would protect and confirm indigenous collectivities in ways not currently recognised or only now emerging.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova

AbstractEven though self-determination of peoples has an esteemed place in international law, it seems fairly clear that peoples divided by international borders have difficulty in exercising their right to self-determination. It is thus interesting to examine whether general international law places constraints on trans-national peoples’ right to self-determination. Of particular interest in this article is to examine whether indigenous peoples divided by international borders have a right to self-determination, given the recent adoption of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The article will also take up cases where transnational indigenous peoples of Sami and Inuit have tried to exercise their joint self-determination and whether we can, in fact, argue that indigenous peoples divided by international borders have a right to exercise their united self-determination.


2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Barelli

AbstractThe right of peoples to self-determination represents one of the most controversial norms of international law. In particular, two questions connected with the meaning and scope of this right have been traditionally contentious: first, who constitutes a ‘people’ for the purposes of self-determination, and, secondly, what does the right of self-determination actually imply for its legitimate holders. Against this unsettled background, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirmed, in a straightforward manner, that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In light of the uncertainties that were mentioned above, it becomes necessary to clarify the actual implications of this important recognition. This article will seek to do so by discussing the drafting history of the provision on self-determination contained in the UNDRIP and positioning it within the broader normative framework of the instrument.


Author(s):  
Xanthaki Alexandra

This chapter examines the rights to culture in Articles 11(1), 12, 13(1), and 34. The freedom of indigenous peoples to have their indigenous identities and cultures respected has been the main incentive for their struggle and one of the main reasons for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The recognition of indigenous cultural rights is deeply rooted in the principle of respect of the diversity and richness of their identities, the end of historical injustices committed against them, and the principle of self-determination, all of which are incorporated in the preamble of the Declaration. Unfortunately, patterns of expropriation of indigenous religious and cultural objects and neglect, even destruction of indigenous cultural manifestations, still continue. In addition, new waves of tourism beyond ‘the beaten truck’ commodify important indigenous historical and archaeological sites. It is therefore of no surprise that the protection of culture is so important in the whole text of the Declaration.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taryn Lee

Indigenous peoples in Australia have been adversely affected by the process of colonisation by the British Crown. Despite Australia’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘Declaration’), there is little evidence that it is an effective means of redressing the historical wrongs suffered by Indigenous communities in Australia. This essay outlines the experience of Indigenous peoples in Australia and examines the utility of the Declaration in international law. While observing that Indigenous peoples have had limited engagement with the Declaration, there is still potential for the Declaration to affect change through its underpinning principles of the right to self-determination and the status of Indigenous peoples as distinct political groups.


Author(s):  
Weller Marc

This chapter studies Articles 3, 4, 5, 18, 23, and 46(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The debate about the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples, and its provisional conclusion through the adoption of the Declaration, represents a very significant step in the development of concepts of international legal personality. First, the change in terminology from ‘populations’ to ‘people’ marks the emergence of indigenous peoples as subjects, rather than objects of international law. Second, there was the possibility of drawing on existing international legal language in relation to a safeguard clause, which was eventually adopted in line with the General Assembly's vulnerable Friendly Relations resolution. Without the adoption of this clause, it is unlikely that the Declaration could have been adopted with a significant majority, if at all.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document