Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:25:02.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Legal Status of North American Indians After 500 Years of Colonization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Serv Wiemers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Next year, the ‘discovery’ of America by Columbus, 500 years ago, will be commemorated. The discovery of America started a time of colonization for the original inhabitants, the Indians. Since the 1970s an Indian movement has emerged in North America demanding the Indians' ‘rightful place among the family of nations’. This article contains a survey of the current international legal position of Indians in North America. Wiemers holds that international legal principles, developed in the decolonization context, are applicable to the North American Indian population. The right of a people to selfdetermination is the most discussed one.

Type
Student Contributions
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 69 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1992

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. The use of the terms ‘populations’, ‘peoples’ or ‘nations’ in a legal way when speaking of the indigenous or the North American Indians reflects differences regarding the rights recognized as theirs. In the first paragraphs. I will use these terms only in the sociological way, without legal implications.

2. The declaration of independence is reprinted in: Akwesasne Notes, Voices from Wounded Knee 54–55(1974). See also Indianen Blijven in Wounded Knee; Plek Uitgeroepen tot “Souvereine Staat” [Indians Stay in Wounded Knee; Place Proclaimed “Sovereign State], De Volkskrant. March 12. 1973, at 7.

3. Four Directions Council, Grand Council of the Crees, Indian Law Resource Center, limit Circumpolar Conference, National Indian Youth Concil, World Council of Indigenous Peoples (all North American), Indian Council of South America, International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development, Indigenous World Association, and National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat. United Nations Centre for Human Rights, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples 3–4 (1990).

4. See Nowak, M., Human Rights News. 1990 NQHR 177–178.Google Scholar

5. Convention No. 107 concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, reprinted in International Labor Organization, International Labor Conventions and Recommendations. 1919–1981 (1982).

6. See. e.g.. International Labor Organization, Indigenous Peoples: Living and Working Conditions of Aboriginal Populations in Independent Countries (1953).

7. Lerner, N., Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law 105–114 (1991).Google Scholar

8. ECOSOC Res. 1589 (L) of May 21, 1971.

9. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1–4.

10. See. e.g.. Tarsh, R.L., Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law 80 AJIL 371 (1986)Google Scholar and Roy, F.K., Alfredsson., G. Indigenous Rights: The Literature Explosion. 13 Transnational Perspectives 19 (1987).Google Scholar

11. Reprinted in Fenneu., G. Aboriginal Rights in International Law 85–88(1978).Google Scholar

12. Reprinted in NANAI-Notes, October 1977. at 14–19.

13. Farsh, R.L., supra note 10, at 372.Google Scholar See also Swepston., L. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and International Organisations: New Perspectives. 13 Transnational Perspectives 16(1987).Google Scholar

14. Workgroup Indian Project, Report on the Fourth Russell Tribunal on the Rights of the Indians of the Americas. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, November 30,1980.

15. Sub-Commission Res. 2(XXXIV) (Sept. 8.1981); Commission on Human Rights Res. 1982/19 (Mar. 10): ECOSOC Res. 1982/34 (May 7).

16. United Nations Centre for Human Rights, supra note 3. at 7.

17. Id.. See also Farsh, R.L., supra note 10. at 383–384.Google Scholar

18. See. e.g., the Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its eighth session U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/42. Para. 114 (August 27, 1990).

19. United Nations Centre for Human Rights, supra note 3. at 12. See also Farsh., R.L. United Nations Seminar on Indigenous Peoples and States. 83 AJIL602 (1989).Google Scholar

20. See. e.g.. the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights. Jan Martenson. who stated at the opening session of the 1989 United Nations Seminar on Indigenous Peoples and States: “Indigenous peoples and their organizations have made a very significant and lasting impact on the United Nations”: Farsh., R.L. supra note 19. at 600.Google Scholar

21. Art. I( I) of ILOConvention No. 107. See note 6.

22. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. Para. 379. This is the most accepted and authorative definition.

23. See the discussion on the word population during the revision of the ILO Convention (N. Lcrner. supra note 7. at 102–103). and in the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (e.g. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 1990/42. Para. 113).

24. United Nations Centre for Human Rights, supra note 3. at 13.

25. See. e.g.. the 1990 Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its eighth session. ‘Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples’ [emphasis added], where the term population can hardly be found. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/42.

26. Art. 27 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

27. See Kiwanuka., R.N. The Meaning of “People” in the African Charier on Human anil Peoples' Rights. 82 AJIL 92–93 (1988).Google Scholar

28. Capotorti., F. Study on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic. Religious and Linguistic Minorities.Google Scholar quoted in Kiwanuka., R.N. supra note 27. at 92.Google Scholar

29. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/31. Paras. 32–38.

30. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/L.1540. Para. 24.

31. Tarsh., R.L. supra note 10. at 373. Similarly, the Sub-Commission's agenda refers to “Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples”.Google Scholar

32. Canada Act 1982. Chapter 11: Artt. 15.16.23 and 29 concern minorities: Artt. 25.35 and 37 concern indigenous populations.

33. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/SR.15. Para. 26.

34. See Daes, E-I.A., United Nations Activities in the Field of Indigenous Rights. 13 Transnational Perspectives II (1987).Google Scholar

35. Farsh, R.L., supra note 19, at 602.Google Scholar

36. See. e.g., Kiwanuka., R.N. supra note 27. at 86–90.Google Scholar

37. Greco-Bulgarian Case. 1930 P.C.I.J. Rep. (Ser. F. No. 17).

38. See note 32.

39. See Farsh., R.L. supra note 10, at 377.Google Scholar

40. Lerner., N. supra note 7. at 102.Google Scholar

41. Report of the Working Group on its Sixth Session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/24, Paras. 68,78. Cf. with regard to the development of the use of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ the Report of the Working Group on its Fourth Session of 1985, in which clear hesitation is still expressed in using this term, U.N. Doc. E/CN, 4/Sub.2/1985/22, Paras. 63–64.

42. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/24, Para. 76.

43. U.N. Doc./E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/24, Para. 78.

44. See, e.g., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4, Para. 263.

45. See note 23.

46. Signed December 26. 1933: 165 L.N.T.S. 19. and 28 AJIL supplement 75 (1934).

47. See I. Frownlie. Principles of Public International Law 74 (1979): and Akehurst., M. A Modern Introduction to International Law 53 (1984).Google Scholar

48. See Nieuwe BIA-Statistieken [New flA-Siaiistics]. NANAI-Notes. June/July 1982 at 20. The Lakota (Sioux) Nation consists of 100.000 people altogether, the other communities have smaller population figures.

49. Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs. Tribal Directory 6 (1983). For comparison, the Navajo reservation is about twice the size of the Netherlands.

50. 1. Frownlie. supra note 47. at 75. Some states have arisen before government was very well organized.

51. Wat 76.

52. With the US government only, various Indian nations have concluded 370 formal treaties.

53. Akehurst., M. supra note 47. at 55–56.Google Scholar

54. 1. Frownlie, supra note 47, at 77–79.

55. See United Nations Centre for Human Rights, supra note 3. at 5 and Akwesasne Notes. A fasic Call to Consiousness 29 (1978).

56. Oglala's adrcssed the UN in 1973 during the Wounded Knee conflict and got the answer that the UN “cannot interfere in matters within domestic jurisdiction” and “deal with those nations who contend they are nations within nations”; We Want a Voice, Akwesasne Notes. April 1973. at 29 (Vol. 5. No. 2).

57. See. e.g.. I. Frownlie. supra note 47, at 513.595. See also I.L.C.. Draft Articles on Slate Responsibility. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-Second Session 30–34 (1980); Article 19.

58. See. e.g.. Lerner., N. supra note 7. at 100Google Scholar and farsh, R.L., supra note 10. at 373.Google Scholar

59. Id.. See also fennett, G., supra note 11. at 13.Google Scholar

60. See Kiwanuka, R.N., supra note 27. at 90.Google Scholar

61. See Akehurst, M., supra note 47, at 253.Google Scholar

62. U.N.G.A.Res. 2625(XXV).

63. See the statement made by the US representative at the WGIP's second session: “Access to the electoral process in a multi-cultural democracy is all the self-determination that anyone needs”. Farsh., R.L. supra note 10. at 377.Google Scholar

64. See. e.g.. the revision of the ILO Convention, referred to in Paragraph 2.2: and Farsh., R.L. supra note 10. at 377.Google Scholar

65. See. e.g.. Kiwanuka., R.N. supra note 27.Google Scholar

66. Western Sahara Case (Advisory Opinion). 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 114. See also Fennett., G. supra note 11. at 51.Google Scholar

67. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. Paras 270.272.

68. See. e.g.. Farsh, R.L., supra note 10. at 382. It is not clear whether the statements of the Pope implied support for secession.Google Scholar

69. Id. at 375.

70. Draft Declaration of Principles Proposed by the Indian Law Resource Center. Four Directions Council. National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service. National Indian Youth Council.InuitCircumpolar Conference, and the International Indian Treaty Council (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1985/ WP.4/ Add.4): and one by the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1985/ WP.4. at 11). See also U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/42. Para. 114.

71. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/42. Annex II. This text is not definitive. However, in the text prepared for the 1991 session only minor changes have been introduced.

72. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1989/22. See also R.L. farsh, supra note 19.

73. See Wiemers, S., Armoede onder V.S.-lndianen [Poverty Amongst US Indians], NANAI-Notes. September 1988. at 12: and Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.The Canadian Indian 5 (1981).Google Scholar

74. U.N.G.A. Res. 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, Art. 3.

75. F Sohn, L., Models of Autonomy Within the United Nations Framework, in Y. Dinstein. Models of Autonomy 5 (1983).Google Scholar

76. The Martinez Cobo Study, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/2 l/Add.6. Para. 148. The desire for total independence of some Indian peoples is already discussed in Paras. 2 and 3.

77. See, e.g., the reaction of the Canadian government to the protests near the town of Oka in the summer