Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Name	Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Date signed	2007
Location signed	United Nations headquarters
Parties	United Nations General Assembly
Language	English language

Contents

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a United Nations instrument adopted to recognize and affirm the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide, articulating standards for self-determination, cultural preservation, land rights, and remedies. The text emerged from decades of international advocacy by indigenous leaders associated with organizations such as the International Labour Organization, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Arctic Council, and it was negotiated within the framework of United Nations Human Rights Council processes and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Its adoption influenced instruments, litigation, and policy debates in contexts ranging from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to national tribunals like the Supreme Court of Canada and the High Court of Australia.

Background and Development

The Declaration’s origins trace to early 20th century petitions to bodies such as the League of Nations, later evolving through milestones including the International Labour Organization Convention 169, the work of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and resolutions from the United Nations Economic and Social Council and the United Nations General Assembly; key moments involved negotiators from indigenous movements like the Makah, Sámi, Maori, Navajo Nation, Mapuche, Ainu, and Inuit. Drafting occurred over decades in forums involving states such as Canada, Australia, United States, New Zealand, Norway, Bolivia, Mexico, and Brazil, with contributions from legal scholars at institutions including Harvard University, University of Oxford, and Université de Montréal. Prominent participants included delegates linked to the International Indian Treaty Council, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, while parallel litigation before bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and treaty negotiations like the Treaty of Waitangi informed substantive content.

The Declaration enshrines rights addressing collective and individual dimensions, referencing principles that intersect with jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and national courts including the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa. It affirms rights to self-determination (linked in practice to cases like Reference re Secession of Quebec), to lands and resources tied to treaties such as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and instruments like ILO Convention No. 169, to cultural practices protected in precedents from the High Court of Australia and the New Zealand Court of Appeal, and to free, prior, and informed consent that echoes standards in the World Bank safeguard policies and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Provisions cover remedies through international mechanisms including petitions to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and advocacy before commissions such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and tribunals like the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Adoption occurred in a United Nations General Assembly session in 2007 after protracted negotiation similar to diplomatic processes seen at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations and the Rome Statute debates; voting patterns reflected geopolitical alignments seen in votes on resolutions involving Kosovo, South Africa, India, Russia, and China. The final vote recorded widespread support from states including Norway, Canada (after a reversal), New Zealand, Mexico, and Bolivia, with notable abstentions and opposing votes from countries such as United States, Australia, Canada (initially), and Russia before eventual changes in position by some actors following domestic policy shifts and advocacy by indigenous bodies including the Assembly of First Nations and the National Congress of American Indians.

Post-adoption, the Declaration influenced legislation, jurisprudence, and policy in jurisdictions including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Bolivia, Ecuador, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Colombia, informing reforms in administrative law, land titling, and environmental review processes tied to projects by corporations like Rio Tinto, Shell plc, and ExxonMobil. It has been cited in decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and policy instruments of the European Union and funding conditionalities of the World Bank Group, while indigenous organizations such as the Māori Council, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and the Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages mobilized the Declaration to advance cultural revitalization programs supported by bodies like UNESCO and the United Nations Development Programme.

Critics from states and legal scholars connected to institutions such as Oxford University, Yale Law School, and the Australian National University have argued the Declaration’s language on territorial rights and self-determination could conflict with principles in instruments like the United Nations Charter and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, raising concerns also voiced in diplomatic contexts involving Peru, Ecuador, China, and India. Industry groups and ministries in resource-rich regions, including offices in Western Australia, Quebec, and Alberta, have contested the practical effects of free, prior, and informed consent on extractive projects, producing legal disputes that reached forums such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and administrative tribunals like the National Native Title Tribunal of Australia. Debates also involve tensions highlighted by scholars publishing in journals affiliated with Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press over enforceability and consistency with existing treaty obligations like the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In Canada, federal and provincial programs and court rulings in cases comparable to Delgamuukw v. British Columbia referenced principles aligned with the Declaration, while institutions like the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami pursued policy changes; in New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Māori Council engaged with Declaration norms alongside settlements under the Treaty of Waitangi. Australia experienced shifts through litigation such as Mabo v Queensland and policy dialogues with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, leading to later endorsement by federal authorities, whereas states in Latin America including Bolivia and Ecuador incorporated rights-recognition measures into constitutions influenced by indigenous movements like the Cocaleros and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. In the Arctic, bodies such as the Arctic Council and indigenous organizations like the Inuit Circumpolar Council have used the Declaration to advance cross-border cooperation on rights and environmental protection.

Category:United Nations declarations Category:Indigenous rights