scholarly journals Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-141
Author(s):  
Garth Nettheim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Indigenous Australians ◽  
Unfinished Business ◽  
Marked Contrast ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Reconciliation Process

The paper begins by noting the low level of reference to Indigenous Australians in the Commonwealth Constitution at the start of Federation, and goes on to discuss the limits to what was achieved by the 1967 amendments. The situation represents a marked contrast with the USA and Canada in terms of treaties and constitutional recognition. In Australia, particularly during the period of the ‘Reconciliation’ process in the 1990s, important steps were taken by Indigenous Australians to identify items of ‘unfinished business’ in a ‘Statement of Indigenous Rights’. But there has been limited progress to meet these aspirations. And Australian law still lacks a tradition of recognition of human rights generally, let alone Indigenous rights. International law, too, largely lacked recognition of human rights, generally prior to the adoption in 1945 of the Charter of the United Nations. The brief references in the Charter were subsequently developed in a range of declarations and of treaties. These applied to people generally, with scant reference to Indigenous peoples. But, since the 1970s, there has been growing international recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples under existing declarations and treaties. Since the 1990s, in particular, the UN system has established specific mechanisms for addressing such issues. On 13 September 2007, the General Assembly finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

scholarly journals Perspectives on Reconciliation & Indigenous Rights

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Burridge
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Political Context ◽  
Indigenous Australians ◽  
Unfinished Business ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Community Attitudes ◽  
The Status ◽  
National Reconciliation

This paper provides an overview of discourses of the movement for national reconciliation prevailing within the Australian socio-political context since the inception of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, to the national apology delivered by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13th February 2008. It provides an framework for the various discourses of reconciliation, by exploring and analysing the accrued meanings to such terms such as ‘genuine’, substantive or ‘true’ reconciliation; the Howard’s Government’s ‘practical reconciliation’ and the Rudd government’s great attempt at ‘symbolic’ reconciliation in the national apology to Indigenous Australians. In the changing political context in Australia today this paper revisits the debates on reconciliation, and endeavours to locate the movement solidly within a human rights framework that includes first nation rights. This requires an examination of the roots of the reconciliation movement including community attitudes to reconciliation and the nature of the peoples’ movement as well as the differing perspectives of policy makers, politicians and of course, Indigenous peoples. It asks crucial questions about the progress of reconciliation and the type of reconciliation mainstream Australians will accept. In truth therefore, was the ‘National Apology’ a grand symbolic gesture by mainstream Australia to maintain the status quo and divert our eyes from the more searching questions of the ‘unfinished business’ of ‘substantive’ reconciliation which encompasses first nations rights for Indigenous peoples.

Recent Books on Human Rights and Groups Review Essays International Law and the Evolution of Indigenous Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-131
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Critical Stage ◽  
Conditions Of Possibility ◽  
Supranational Level

AbstractThe recent adoption of the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has reinvigorated the discourse on indigenous rights. This essay reviews three books – Xanthaki's Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-Determination, Culture and Land; Gilbert's Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights Under International Law: From Victims to Actors; and Rodriguez-Pinero's Indigenous Peoples, Postcolonialism and International Law: The ILO Regime (1919–1989) – that illustrate the way in which indigenous rights have evolved at the supranational level. Moreover, in their different ways, these important books highlight the conditions of possibility for indigenous peoples at a critical stage in the development of indigenous rights in international law.

Global Indigenous Rights and Responses

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat Lauderdale ◽  
Nicholas D. Natividad
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
International System ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Economic ◽  
Real Change ◽  
The Individual

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues estimates that there are over 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Dialogue and political negotiations with indigenous peoples has a long history that began at least a half a millennium ago when the notion of an inter-national” community and the concept of the nation-state became dominant. Since that time, the concepts of sovereignty, self-determination, rule of law, and human rights have led to the establishment of the frameworks and structures of organization that are now referred to collectively as modern international law. But unlike most modern international human rights law, which emphasizes rights of the individual, indigenous peoples generally think in terms of collective rather than individual rights. Because indigenous peoples’ “law” suggests the importance of collective rights, it renders a culture of responsibility and accountability to the collective. At present, international indigenous rights are a type of superficial bandage, giving the appearance of propriety to the crisis faced by the hegemonic “international system of states.” Therefore, indigenous rights standards propagated by organizations such as the UN currently are largely symbolic. However, they could potentially lead to real change if they are coupled with widespread acknowledgment of the fact that diverse societies exist throughout the world with different forms of social organization and diverse conceptions of law.

scholarly journals The Cross-Fertilization of Human Rights Norms and Indigenous Peoples in Africa: From Endorois and Beyond

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek M K Inman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Dynamic Relationship ◽  
African Context ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Tremendous Impact

Beginning in the 20th century, international law expanded beyond law between nations to eventually embrace the concept of human rights. However, until recently, human rights efforts were focused mostly on individuals, their rights and the obligations of the state in question. Indigenous peoples, on the other hand, have always articulated their collective rights and, to their credit, achieved notable success. While there is no doubt that these achievements should be applauded, what is also of interest, and deserves further study, are the ways in which human rights jurisprudence concerning Indigenous peoples’ collective rights intermingle, cross-fertilize, and integrate. This dynamic relationship between the various sources of Indigenous rights law has had a tremendous impact locally, changing how states interact with the Indigenous peoples living within its borders. The first aim of this article will be to explore the above-mentioned topics in detail with a particular eye on the African human rights systems. Secondly, it will examine how they relate to the Endorois case that was recently decided by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. I conclude with an investigation into what this could mean for Indigenous peoples’ rights in the African context.

The Contribution of the Inter-American Human Rights Bodies to Evolving International Law on Indigenous Rights over Lands and Natural Resources

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzamaria Tramontana
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Resource Exploitation ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Judicial Discourse

AbstractBecause of the special relationship with land that characterises indigenous groups, rights over land and natural resources are at the heart of indigenous claims under international law. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court have developed a copious jurisprudence on the subject matter and contributed to the establishment of certain minimum indigenous peoples' land rights under customary international law. This article analyses the Inter-American judicial discourse on land issues in the light of the current status of relevant international law and reflects upon the potential contribution of the former to the further development of the latter. It focuses on the relationship between historical dispossessions and indigenous contemporary land claims, on the state duty to land delimitation, demarcation and titling, and on indigenous peoples' ownership over natural resources located within their traditional lands and their participatory rights in relation to resource exploitation.

Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russel Lawrence Barsh
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Level ◽  
Annual Session ◽  
Indigenous Organizations ◽  
First Time

The Working Group on Indigenous Populations, an organ of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, ended its fourth annual session last August by distributing seven “draft principles” to governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for comment as the first step in preparing “a draft declaration on indigenous rights, which may be proclaimed by the General Assembly.” For the first time since indigenous organizations took their concerns to the international level in 1977, a formal commitment has been made to the development of new law, probably in time for the “cinquecentennial” in 1992 of the “discovery” of the Americas and a proposed international indigenous year.

scholarly journals Looking Forward Looking Back: Customary International Law, Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Shea Esterling
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
United Nations Declaration ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Two of the most laudable achievements of human rights are the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) and the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (undrip). Aside from advancing human rights, both are examples of soft law. For the undrip, this soft law status has generated significant controversy which is evocative of the earlier debate surrounding the legal status of the udhr. Yet unexamined, this article analyses this contemporary controversy surrounding the undrip in light of the historical debate surrounding the legal status of the udhr. Fleshing out points of convergence and divergence, these debates unearth narratives which shed light on the claims and advocacy strategies of Indigenous Peoples and the role of customary international law within human rights. Ultimately, it reveals that these narratives do little to secure the enforcement of indigenous rights.

scholarly journals Indigenous Nations’ Rights in the Balance

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Marcelle Burns
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
White Face ◽  
Indigenous Human Rights ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Declaration

The United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) received a mixed reception. Some commentators viewed it as setting important normative standards for the recognition of Indigenous human rights within the international law framework, whilst others have been critical of the declaration for unduly limiting the nature and scope of Indigenous rights (Anaya 2004; Churchill 2011; Davis 2008; Moreton-Robinson 2011; Pitty 2001; Watson and Venne 2012). Indigenous Nations’ Rights in the Balance: An Analysis of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by Charmaine White Face (2013) makes an important contribution to this debate by methodically charting the key changes made during the passage of the declaration through the United Nations process and highlighting the significance of these changes for the recognition and realisation of Indigenous rights.

Indigenous Peoples

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

The rights of indigenous peoples under international law have evolved greatly since the late 1980s. Efforts by indigenous peoples to get their rights recognized under international law started during the League of Nations in the early 1920s, but it was only in 2007 that the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The adoption of the declaration not only marks an important moment in terms of lawmaking; it also represents the achievement of long decades of lobbying and advocacy from indigenous peoples’ representatives. The UN declared the decade 1994–2004 as the First International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, and later 2005–2015 was declared the second such decade. The main objective was the strengthening of international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, education, and health. As a result, in 2002, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established as an advisory body to the UN Economic and Social Council. But it was only in 2007 that the UN General Assembly adopted the UNDRIP, which universally proclaims and consolidates a specific international legal corpus of rights for indigenous peoples. The adoption of the declaration is representative of the significant legal developments of the rights of indigenous peoples under international law. The international legal framework concerns general human rights such as nondiscrimination and equality, as well as very specific collective rights such as self-determination, cultural rights, land rights, and control over natural resources. The establishment of a specific corpus of law dedicated to the rights of indigenous peoples, or sui generis rights, has also meant a proliferation of scholarly literature on the topic. This article does not propose to be exhaustive or comprehensive, but rather to offer a review of some of the texts that can guide the researcher or the reader through the vast and extensive existing literature. First, it focuses on some of the leading sources that provide a general overview on the rights of indigenous peoples. It then examines the institutional and regional approaches. And finally, it focuses on specific issues affecting indigenous peoples, namely historical claims, self-determination, land rights, natural resources, and development.

Contributory Fault under International Law: A Gateway for Human Rights in ISDS?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farouk El-Hosseny ◽  
Patrick Devine
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Government ◽  
Bear Creek ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The intersection between foreign investment and human rights is gaining attention, as is evident from an increasing number of investment treaty awards analysing legal issues relating to human rights. In the recent International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration of Bear Creek v Peru, Philippe Sands QC posited, in a dissenting opinion, that the investor’s contribution to events—ie protests against its allegedly adverse environmental impact and disregard of indigenous rights, namely resulting from its ‘inability to obtain a “social licence”’—which led to the unlawful expropriation of its investment, was ‘significant and material’. He further noted that the investor’s ‘responsibilities are no less than those of the government’ and found that damages should thus be reduced. Last year, the Netherlands adopted a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which allows tribunals to ‘take into account non-compliance by the investor with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ when assessing damages. These recent developments shed light on how states and tribunals, as part of their decision-making process, can take into account human rights in practice, and crucially in respect of damages analyses. By first dissecting the concept of contributory fault, then shedding light on the intersection of investment treaty law and human rights, as elucidated in recent jurisprudence, this article questions whether there now exists a gateway for human rights obligations (soft or hard) in the investment treaty arbitration realm through the concept of contributory fault.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document