Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:19:47.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United Nations Seminar on Indigenous Peoples and States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Russel Lawrence Barsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A recent meeting of governmental and indigenous nongovernmental experts in Geneva paved the way for more direct indigenous participation in United Nations decision making, and challenged the international community to harness multilateral development assistance for the promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 599 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report on the United Nations Seminar on the effects of racism and racial discrimination on the social and economic relations between indigenous peoples and States, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/22 [hereinafter Report].

2 Sub-Comm’n Res. 1987/8 (Aug. 31, 1987), approved by ESC Res. 1988/35 (May 27, 1988).

3 I.e., the standard-setting activities of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the ILO. See Barsh, Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law, 80 AJIL 369 (1986); Barsh, Revision of ILO Convention No. 107, 81 AJIL 756 (1987).

4 It was a tacit condition of the Western Group’s nonopposition to this proposal that the seminar not be another “talk shop,” the Australian delegation explained privately, but yield practical results. Seminars are usually planned for 2 weeks and 32 participants, but Western fiscal concerns led to a compromise on 1 week and 25 participants. Funds came from the program of advisory services in the field of human rights, a Western priority program, which usually provides training and legal consulting to government officials.

5 Sub-Comm’n Res. 1988/106 (Sept. 1, 1988). This resolution referred specifically to a meeting on indigenous self-government planned for 1991 under General Assembly Resolution 42/47 (Nov. 30, 1987), but was understood to reflect dissatisfaction with the plans for the more immediate meeting as well.

6 Australia, Brazil, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, India, Norway, the Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia. The United States was among the five governments that were invited but did not send experts.

7 Australia, China and the USSR.

8 Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn (Chulalongkorn University, Thailand); Professor Douglas Sanders (University of British Columbia, Canada); Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Colegio de México and the United Nations University, Mexico). The background papers are reproduced in full in the Report, supra note 1.

9 Id., para. 24.

10 Id., para. 33.

11 Id., paras. 26, 30.

12 Muntarbhorn (see note 8 supra), from the author’s notes of the proceedings; no official transcript or summary record of the discussion has been prepared.

13 Stavenhagen (see note 8 supra).

14 Muntarbhorn.

15 Sanders (see note 8 supra).

16 Report, supra note 1, paras. 25, 40(viii).

17 Id., para. 29. Such theories have “no legal standing and are entirely without merit.” Id., para. 40(ii).

18 International Labour Conference, Partial Revision of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) (Report No. IV(2), 1989) (comments on draft Art. 1). Participants in the seminar favored the use of the term “peoples” because of its implications for the right to self-determination. Report, supra note 1, para. 17.

19 Id., paras. 27, 40(v) and (xiv). In the view of Sanders (see note 8 supra), self-determination has been the “integrating focus of indigenous claims and concerns.”

20 The participants agreed, however, that indigenous “peoples” are not “minorities” (Report, supra note 1, para. 40(xii)); that they are “proper subjects of international law” (id., para. 41(ii)); and that, while not states, they possess international rights and duties (id., para. 22). The question of indigenous peoples’ standing to invoke international remedies has also been raised by a study of “The Status of the Individual and Contemporary International Law.” UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/33 and Add.1. Significant in this regard is the seminar’s use of the term “indigenous peoples’ organizations,” which implies more than “non-governmental organizations.”

21 Report, supra note 1, paras. 26, 41(i).

22 Id., para. 31 (emphasis supplied).

23 Id., para. 23.

24 Muntarbhorn.

25 Report, supra note 1, paras. 34, 36, 40(vii).

26 Id., para. 39.

27 Id., para. 41(xvi) and (xvii).

28 Id., para. 40(x).

29 Id., para. 41(xx).

30 Muntarbhorn.

31 See, e.g., the comments of the Four Directions Council on the “right of everyone to own property,” in UN Doc. A/43/729 (1988).

32 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/10.

33 Comm’n on Human Rights Res. 1989/45 (Mar. 6, 1989). Regarding coordination between the human rights and development agencies of the United Nations, see Comm’n Res. 1989/13 (Mar. 2, 1989) and 1989/71 (Mar. 8, 1989). For the Declaration on the Right to Development, see GA Res. 41/128 (Dec. 4, 1986).

34 Comm’n Res. 1989/39, para. 8 (Mar. 6, 1989).

35 E.g., Seminar on National, Local and Regional Arrangements for the Promotion of Human Rights in the Asian Region, UN Doc. ST/HR/SER.A/12 (1982); Seminar on the Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief, UN Doc. ST/HR/SER.1/16 (1984); Seminar on International Assistance and Support to Peoples and Movements Struggling against Colonialism, Racism, Racial Dis crimination and Apartheid, UN Doc. ST/HR/SER.A/19 (1986). Reports often are transmitted directly to the General Assembly as well, e.g., UN Docs. A/40/361 (1985) and A/41/571 (1986).