1 At the time of the Vote, the United States delivered its explanation of vote and observations with respect to the Declaration, which are available at <http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.-gov/press_releases/20070913_204.html>. The United States provided its views on the nature of the Declaration as well as on various provisions of the Declaration, including its objections and concerns with respect to treatment in the Declaration of issues of self-determination, lands and resources, and redress.

2 See U.N. GAOR, 61st Sess., 107th plen. mtg. at 19, U.N. Doc. A/61/PV.107 (Sept. 13, 2007) [hereinafter GA Sept. 13, 2007 Records].

3 Office of the High Comm'r for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 9 (Rev. 1), The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1997), available at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm> [hereinafter Fact Sheet].

4 See U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Comm'n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm'n on the Promotion and Prot. of Human Rights, Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Indigenous Peoples and Minorities: Working Paper on Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples, ¶ 5, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2001/2 (2001).

5 See ECOSOC Res. 1982/34, ¶ 1, U.N. Doc. E/RES/1982/34 (May 7, 1982).

6 See Sub-Comm'n on Prevention of Discrimination & Prot. of Minorities Res. 1994/45, ¶ 4 & Annex, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/ SUB.2/RES/1994/45 (Aug. 26, 1994).

7 Press Release, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Council Concludes First Session, (June 30, 2006); see also H.R.C. Res. 2006/2 (June 29, 2006).

8 See G.A. Res. 61/178, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/178 (Dec. 20, 2006).

9 See United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007, <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html> (last visited Nov. 29, 2007).

10 See Press Release, General Assembly, General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples; “Major Step Forward” Towards Human Rights for All, Says President, U.N. Doc. GA/10612 (Sept. 13, 2007).

11 See Fact Sheet, supra note 3 (“The Working Group is open to representatives of all indigenous peoples and their communities and organizations… . In 1985, the Working Group began preparing a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, taking into account the comments and suggestions of participants in its sessions, particularly representatives of indigenous peoples and Governments.“).

12 See Comm'n on Human Rights Res. 1995/32, f 7 & Annex, U.N. Doc. UN Doc E/CN4/RES/1995/32 (March 3, 1995).

13 See, e.g., GA Sept. 13, 2007 Records at 11 (statement of representative of Australia noting that ‘ ‘Australia and others repeatedly called for a chance to participate in the negotiations on the current text of the declaration'’ and expressing disappointment that ‘ ‘no such opportunity has been afforded'’ and that the Assembly was unable to arrive at a consensus text); id. at 15 (statement of representative of United States characterizing the negotiation process as ‘ ‘extraordinary'’ and noting that the document presented for action “was prepared and submitted after the negotiations had concluded,” which “sets a poor precedent with respect to United Nations practice“); id. at 16 (statement of representative of Russia asserting that the “non-transparent” negotiation process “ensured that a group of countries, on the territory of which live a significant number of those who may be considered indigenous peoples, was excluded at a decisive stage from the negotiation process'’ and expressing hope that such a process ‘ ‘will not set a negative precedent for the General Assembly's activities“; id. at 17 (representative of Colombia expressing regret that “the most recent consultative process in the Assembly was characterized by a lack of transparency, a lack of willingness to negotiate and a lack of openness, which did not permit … consensus to be reached“).

14 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, Annex, art. 9, U.N. Doc. A/Res/61/295 (Oct. 2,2007).

15 Id. art. 20(1).

16 Id. art. 21(1).

17 Id. art. 24(1).

18 Cal v. Attorney General (Belize 2007), ¶ 103-105.

19 The claimants sought a declaration that the villages and their members hold collective and individual rights in the lands and resources that they have used and occupied according to Maya customary practices and that these rights constitute “property” that is protected under the Belize Constitution; a declaration stating that the villages hold collective title to the lands its members have used and occupied within the boundaries established through Maya customary practices, and that the collective title includes derivative individual rights and interests of members of the villages; an order requiring the government to determine, demarcate, and provide official documentation of the title and rights over the land in accordance with Maya customary law and practices; and an order that the government must not take any acts that might lead the government or third parties to affect the existence, value, use, or enjoyment of the property in the villages, including directing the government to refrain from leasing or granting lands or resources, registering any interest in the land, issuing any regulations concerning land or resources, and issuing any concessions for exploitation of resources. Id. ¶9.

20 Id. ¶¶ 29-39.

21 See id. ¶ 40.

22 See id. ¶¶ 50-59.

23 See id. ¶ 65.

24 See id. ¶ 66.

25 Id. ¶ 67.

26 See id. ¶¶ 69-92.

27 See id. ¶ 101.

28 See id. ¶ 102.

29 Belize Const, arts. 3(d), 17.

30 Cal ¶ 100.

31 Id. ¶¶ 109-110.

32 See Belize Const, arts. 3, 16.

33 Cal¶¶ 113-114.

34 See Belize Const. Arts. 3(a), 4.

35 See Cal ¶116.

36 See id. ¶ 117.

37 Id. ¶ 118.

38 Id. ¶ 122 (quoting Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, Case 12.053, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 40/04, OEA/Ser.L/WII.122, doc. 5 rev. 1 ¶ 171 (2004)).

39 Id. ¶ 123 (quoting Comm. On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXIII: Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ¶ 5, U.N. Doc. A/52/18, Annex V (Aug. 18, 1997)).

40 See id. ¶ 124.

41 See id. ¶ 127.

42 Id. ¶ 129 (quoting Dann v. U.S., Case 11.140, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 75/02, ¶ 130 (2001)).

43 Id.

44 See id. ¶ 131 (“It is of some signal importance, in my view, that Belize voted in favour of this Declaration.“); id. ¶ 132 (stressing that “Belize, it should be remembered, voted for [the Declaration]“).

45 Article 26 provides: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

46 Cal ¶¶ 131-132.

47 Id. ¶ 133.

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the United Nations website: (visited December 3, 2007) <http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf>

1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/61/53), part one, chap. II, sect. A.

2 See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

3 A/CONF. 157/24 (Part I), chap. III.

4 Resolution 217 A (III).

1 See Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 I.C.J. (Oct. 8) [hereinafter Judgment]. The basic documents, decisions, written pleadings, hearing transcripts, press releases, and other materials of the Court for this case and other cases are available online at <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

2 See Continental Shelf (Tunis./Libya), 1982 I.C.J. 18 (Feb. - 24); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), 1984 I.C.J. 246 (Jan. 20); Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), 1985 I.C.J. 13 (June 3); Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Den. v. Nor.), 1993 I.C.J. 38 (June 14); Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), 2001 I.C.J. 40 (Mar. 16); Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea intervening), 2002 I.C.J. 303, at 441 (Oct. 10).

3 See Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (U.K./Fr.), 18I.L.M. 397 (1979); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (Guinea/Guinea-Bissau), 25 I.L.M. 251 (1986); St. Pierre et Miquelon (Can./Fr.), 31 I.L.M. 1149 (1992); Maritime Delimitation (Eritrea/Yemen) 40I.L.M. 900 (2001) available at http://www.pca-cpa.org; Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago, 45 I.L.M. 798 (2006) available at <http://www.pcacpa.org.> Guyana/Suriname (2007) available at <http://www.pcacpa.org.>

4 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.) initiated December 6, 2001; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.) initiated September 16, 2004.

5 See ITLOS Press Release No. 108 (16 Mar. 2007) available at <www.itlos.org>.

6 Nicaragua and Honduras share a land boundary that stretches across the Central American isthmus from the Caribbean Sea to the Gulf of Fonseca on their Pacific coast. With the exception of a short, partial delimitation in the Gulf, their Pacific maritime boundary is not delimited, nor was it before the Court in this case.

7 The Court's island sovereignty finding was only in respect of Bobel, Savanna, Port Royal and South Cays, however, the Court found that “[i]n addition to these four main cays, there are a number of smaller islets, cays and reefs in the same area, of which the physical status (such as whether they are completely submerged below sea level, either permanently or at high tide), and consequently their legal status (for the purposes of the application of Articles 6, 13 or 121 of UNCLOS) are not clear.” Judgment, supra note 1, para. 136.

8 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 321. The third States in the vicinity of the eastern end of this delimitation are Jamaica and Colombia.

9 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 115.

10 The Honduran effectivités were not numerous, but included evidence that Honduras enforced its criminal and civil laws, regulated immigration, and carried out public works on the islands.

11 Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Hond. v. Nicar.), 1960 I.C.J. 192, at 202-203 (Nov 18) [hereinafter 1960 Judgment]. In his description of the boundary in the mouth of .the River Coco, the King of Spain included several geographic features such as the principal arm of the river, Hara, the island of San Pio, islets and shoals in the principal arm, and the harbour bar. See Id.

12 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 40.

13 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 40 quoting 1960 Judgment, supra note 11, p. 198.

14 1960 Judgment, supra note 11, p. 216.

15 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 46.

16 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea intervening), 2002 I.C.J. 303, at 441 (Oct. 10).

17 Judgment, supra note 1, paras. 280, 283. Examining the applicability of equidistance in the territorial sea in light of UNCLOS Article 15, the Court found that this ‘ ‘geomorphological Problem[]” constituted a special circumstance “in which it cannot apply the equidistance principle”. Judgment, supra note 1, paras. 280-81.

18 The Court and other tribunals have typically included islands in the first step of their analysis: the construction of the provisional equidistance line. See for example Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), 2001 I.C.J. 40 (Mar. 16); Maritime Delimitation (Eritrea/Yemen) 40 I.L.M. 900 (2001) available at <www.pca-cpa.org>.

19 On December 13,2007, the Court rejected most of Colombia's preliminary objections and found that it had ‘ ‘jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning sovereignty over the maritime features claimed by the Parties other than the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina.” ICJ Press Release, No. 2007/30 (13 Dec. 2007) available at <www.icj-cij.org>.

20 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 319. The Court did limit the outer extent of its delimitation by stating that “in no case may the line be interpreted as extending more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.” Id.

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ICJ website: (visited December 3, 2007) <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/120/14075.pdf?PHPSESSID=ad460ca669e70941f76f56aa7cc0601b>