Does The General Assembly’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007 confirms that Group Rights now constitute an accepted part of the lexicon of International Human Rights Law ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
PART-I
Meaning and Need of Group Rights
Recognition of Group Rights
PART-II
Regional and International Human Rights Instruments recognising Group Rights
PART-III
Article 27 of the ICCPR and Group Rights
Self-Determination and Group Rights
ILO Convention No.169 and Group rights
PART-IV
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 and Group Rights
PART-V
Conclusion
Introduction :
This Article sets forth the broad contours of the international human rights regime as it concerns the group rights of indigenous peoples. Historically, human rights have been conceived as individual rights; that is, rights belonging to individuals. This conception of human interactions is not complete, as individuals live in communities and such collectives are viewed as being more than merely a sum of the individuals. This has led to calls for the recognition of collective or group rights, which are to be held collectively by indigenous peoples.[1] Providing indigenous peoples with a system of individual rights fails to protect them from the main violations of a collective nature, towards indigenous communities as a group.[2]
The origin of group rights resides in the fact that members of the group are discriminated against precisely because of their group membership and not for their specific characteristics, qualities or defects as individuals. The continuity of a group’s existence in history is the major argument to justify the recognition of sui generis group rights.[3] In Part I of the essay we will discuss the meaning and need of group rights with reference to international human rights law. To appreciate fully the extend of evolution of group rights; we will have an overview of regional and international human rights instruments in Part II. Further, in Part III the discussion will focus on group rights as recognised by Article 27 ICCPR and ILO Convention No. 169. Part IV demonstrates how UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples confirms that group rights now constitute an accepted part of the lexicon of international human rights law.
PART-I
Meaning and Need of Group Rights :
These are called group rights because they depend on the good of group membership, and require group membership to operate. These rights are described in terms of the goods of community, cultural membership, and self-determination. The underlying idea is that persons do not flourish in a vacuum.[4] The first conception of group rights is the “collective” conception. A right is a group right only if it is borne by the group qua group.[5] Collective rights are those whose beneficiary is the collectivity per se rather than its individual members. They are rights which can be exercised by the group itself, rather comprising a set of individual rights ‘collectively’ exercised.[6] Collective rights are human rights in that they are rights held by individuals jointly rather than severally. International Law does not preclude the recognition of collective rights.[7] In the words of Kymplica, collective rights are needed primarily as ‘external protections’ – ‘to protect the group from the impact of external decisions (of the larger society)’.[8]
Recognition of Group Rights :
General human rights principles that are included in widely ratified treaties and that are clearly already part of international law – principles such as non-discrimination and cultural integrity – have been interpreted by authoritative institutions as upholding the collective rights of indigenous peoples.[9] The recent United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[10] in September 2007 confirms that group rights now constitute an accepted part of the lexicon of international human rights law. In the next part of the essay we will deal with how the existing and recent regional and international human rights instruments have affirmed the group rights of indigenous peoples.
PART-II
Regional and International Human Rights Instruments recognising Group Rights :
The formal recognition of collective rights can be found in the preamble of the United Nations Charter.[11] Recognition of rights inhering in the group itself, though without providing such groups with legal personality to pursue specific claims, is also a feature of the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice[12] Article 1 states that ‘all individuals and groups have the right to be different, to consider themselves as different and to be regarded as such’. Though not a binding treaty, the Declaration is significant for the emphasis it places on the protection of group identity, including its strong provisions condemning the forced assimilation of disadvantaged groups and the right of groups to full development.[13] This latter right implies equal access to the means of collective and personal advancement of the values of diverse cultures.[14]
The 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination[15] contains significant substantive and procedural recognition of the rights of groups as such. Examples can be found in obligations requiring the State parties to undertake special measures for the advancement of ‘ethnic groups’ as well as individuals,[16] and in obligations that states and public institutions do not racially discriminate against persons or ‘groups of persons’.
More recent international recognition of the collective dimension of human rights has come about as a result of the 1992 World Earth Summit: Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration[17] recognizes the role of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities’ in environmental management and development and the obligation on states to recognize and support their ‘identity, culture and interests’. States are also obliged under Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to ‘respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of individuals ‘and local communities’ embodying traditional lifestyles’ (of indigenous people).[18] Further, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also recognises collective rights.[19]
Property has been affirmed as an international human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others,” and that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”[20] Similar prescriptions are repeated in the American Convention on Human Rights,[21] the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,[22] and the European Convention on Human Rights.[23] Indigenous land and resource or territorial rights are of a collective character,[24] and they include a combination of possession, use, and management rights. Thus, group rights of indigenous peoples were recognized by the Committee.
Importantly with regard to collective rights are recent decisions of the inter-American human rights institutions in the cases concerning the Awas Tingi community in Nicaragua, the Western Shoshone people in the United States, and the Maya people in Belize.[25] These decisions each explicitly affirm the collective rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and resources on the basis of international legal instruments that only recognize individual rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights interpreted individual rights, such as the right to property, in the context of indigenous peoples’ claims. These institutions held that property rights arise not just within state legal systems, but also within the traditional land tenure systems of indigenous peoples. These rights arise from the collective interaction of indigenous communities and their members, and are therefore collective rights.[26]
PART-III
Article 27 of the ICCPR and Group Rights :
Article 27 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights articulates “rights of persons belonging to” cultural groups,[27] as opposed to specifying rights held by the groups themselves. It is apparent, however, that in its practical application, Article 27 protects group as well as individual interests in cultural integrity. Given that culture is a product of, and is manifested through group dynamics, the enjoyment of rights connected with culture is mostly meaningful in a group context. It would be impossible or lacking in meaning, for example, for an indigenous individual to partake of a traditional indigenous system of dispute resolution alone, or to speak an indigenous language alone, or engage in a communal religious ceremony alone.[28] This understanding is implicit in Article 27 itself, which upholds rights of persons to enjoy their culture “in community with other members of their group.”[29] Culture, ordinarily, is an outgrowth of a collectivity, and, to that extent, affirmation of a cultural practice is an affirmation of the particular cultural group and group rights as such.
In Omninayak v Canada, Chief Omninayak complained that the expropriation of the Lubicon Lake Band’s territories for the purpose of granting leases for forestry and for oil and gas exploration violated the Band’s rights under the Covenant.[30] The Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 27, recognising that:
[T]he rights protected by Article 27, include the right of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and social activities which are part of the culture of the community to which they belong.[31]
The minority group, [indigenous peoples] as a collective, has a separate identity from the individuals of which it is composed. This has been recognised by the Human Rights Committee. The Committee declared that: ‘a restriction upon the right of an individual member of a minority must be necessary for the continued viability and welfare of the minority as a whole.’[32]
In its 1985 decision concerning the Yanomami of Brazil, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights invoked Article 27 and held that “international law in its present state . . . recognises the right of ethnic groups to special protection on their use of their own language, for the practice of their own religion, and, in general, for all those characteristics necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity.”[33] The commission viewed a series of incursions into Yanomami ancestral lands as a threat not only to the Yanomami’s physical well-being but also to their culture and traditions.[34]
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in the course of administering its mandate accepted the existence and validity of collective rights, generally and in the particular situation of indigenous peoples. In 1970, for example, the IACHR ruled the obligation of the Colombian state to defend the land of the Guahibo Indians in that country against external interference. Both the State, in its observations, and the Commission, in establishing its competence in the case, referred to violations of the rights of the communities by private and state intruders.[35]
Self-Determination and Group Rights :
It is significant that both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights give pride of place to the right to self-determination in an identically worded Article 1.[36] In the context of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) has also recognised collective rights. Article 1 guarantees the right to self-determination. In a number of decisions, the Committee has found that the collective right to self-determination does apply to indigenous peoples.[37] The right to self-determination is, without doubt, a group right. It is only exercisable by ‘peoples’.[38]
ILO Convention No.169 and Group rights :
The ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, Convention No.169 of 1989, which is perhaps the most prominent and specific international affirmation of indigenous cultural integrity and group identity. The basic theme of Convention No. 169 is indicated by the convention’s preamble, which recognizes “the aspirations of [indigenous] peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they lie.”[39] Throughout the Convention, the term ‘peoples’ is used. This term signifies collective rights.[40] Article 5 recognises and protects the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices of indigenous and tribal peoples and stipulates that due account be taken of the nature of the problems which face them both as groups and as individuals. It further states that the integrity of the values, practices and institutions of these peoples shall be respected. Both of these provisions support collective rights. The fact that peoples can take legal proceedings for the effective protection of the rights outlined in the Convention, either individually or through their representative bodies, is also consistent with group rights.[41]
PART-IV
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Group Rights :
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 is a unique instrument of the United Nation system because it has been drafted with participation from victims of the human rights violations and the future beneficiaries of its provisions. The Declaration is the result of collaboration among indigenous peoples, individual experts and governments. It recognizes indigenous collective rights and stresses their cultural rights. The Declaration recognizes that efforts to protect indigenous rights require recognition of group rights, the collective rights of indigenous peoples.
The Declaration, with its forty-five articles – an exceptional length for such an instrument – goes a considerable way toward recognizing group rights of indigenous peoples and providing the necessary protection. The Declaration is very broad, covering a range of individual and collective rights. It is the establishment of rights of peoples as groups, and not merely the recognition of individual rights, which is one of the most important purposes of the Declaration. The twenty-first preambular paragraph states:
Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples.
Article 1 of the Declaration recognises collective rights of indigenous peoples to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. It provides that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.
Further, Article 7 (2) stipulates the collective rights of indigenous peoples to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples. It states that:
Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.
The use of the word “peoples” in the Declaration itself recognises group rights of indigenous peoples. The right to self-determination of peoples has been expressly recognised by the United Nation General Assembly and by states in a number of international conventions.[42] Article 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples guarantees indigenous peoples the right to self-determination, by virtue of which indigenous peoples may freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 4 states that, as a specific form of exercising self-determination, indigenous peoples have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to internal and local affairs, including culture, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, economic activities, land and resources management and environment. It also guarantees the ways and means for financing these autonomous functions. Thus, the declaration expressly recognises group rights of the indigenous peoples.
PART-V
Conclusion :
This article’s principle claim is that group rights constitute part of international human rights lexicon. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises the principle of group rights, the collective rights of indigenous peoples. Group rights have been recognised in international human rights law in international conventions, regional treaties and by international decision making bodies. Though the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a non-binding Declaration, member states have started incorporating its provisions in domestic laws. Recently, the President of Bolivia announced the passage of National Law 3760 / the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a legislation that is an exact copy of the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[43] The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues estimates that there are more than 370 million indigenous peoples in some 70 countries worldwide whose collective rights have now been recognised and protected by the Declaration.[44] The significance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be assumed from the fact that it was adopted by the General Assembly by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 4 against, with 11 abstentions.[45] This confirms that group rights now constitute part of the international human rights lexicon.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alexandra Xanthaki, Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-determination, Culture and Land (CUP, Cambridge 2007).
2. Steven Curry, ‘Indigenous Rights’ in Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone, Protecting Human Rights Instruments and Institutions (OUP, Oxford 2003).
3. J Crawford, The Rights of Peoples (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998).
4. Patrick Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (MUP, Manchester 2002).
5. Rhona K M Smith, The Right to Self-Determination (3rd edn OUP, Oxford 2007).
6. Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone, Protecting Human Rights Instruments and Institutions (OUP, Oxford 2003).
7. Julie Debeljak, ‘Barriers to the Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights at the United Nations’ (2000) 26 Monash U L Rev 159.
8. Victor Segesvary, ‘Group rights: The definition of group rights in the contemporary legal debate based on socio-cultural analysis’ (1995) Intl J Group Rights 89.
9. Peter Jones, ‘Human Rights, Group Rights, and Peoples’ Rights’ (1999) 21 Hum Rts Q 80.
10. James Anaya, ‘International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: The Move Toward the Multi-cultural State’ (2004) 21 Ariz J Intl & Comp L 13.
11. Harriet Ketley, ‘Exclusion by Definition: Access to International Tribunals for the Enforcement of the Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2001) 8 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 331.
12. James Anaya, ‘Indian Givers: What Indigenous Peoples have contributed to International Human Rights Law’ (2006) 22 Washington University Law Policy 114.
13. Douglas Sanders, ‘Collective Rights’ (1991) 13 Hum Rts Q 368.
14. Jane Wright ‘Minority Groups, Autonomy, and Self-Determination’ 19 OJLS 605.
15. Osvaldo Kreimer, ‘Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Inter-American Human Rights System, organization of American States’ (2000) 94 American Society International Law Proc. 315.
16. United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007. (Document A/61/L.67 adopted on 13 September 2007).
17. Charter of the United Nations, 1945.
18. International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966 UNGAR 2106 (XX) of December 21, 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969.
19. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.
20. Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993, reprinted in (1992) 31 ILM 818.
21. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58.
22. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III).
23. American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 entered into force 18 July 1978.
24. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976).
25. Kitok v Sweden (Communication No. 197/1985).
26. Lovelace v Canada (Communication No. 24/1977).
27. Marshall (Mikmaq Tribal Society) v Canada (Communication No. 205/1986).
28. Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, (Communication No. 167/1984).
29. Rick Kearns, ‘UN Declaration becomes law of the land in Bolivia’ Indian Country Today (America, 10 December 2007) (http://www.indiancountry.com /content.cfm?id =1096416238 accessed on 15 January 2008).
30. UN News Centre, ‘United Nations adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (13 September 2007) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News ID=23794&Cr=indigenous&Cr1) accessed 25 December 2007.
31. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10612.doc.htm accessed on 25 December 2007.
[1] Julie Debeljak, ‘Barriers to the Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights at the United Nations’ (2000) 26 Monash U L Rev 159, 166.
[2] Alexandra Xanthaki, Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-determination, Culture and Land (CUP, Cambridge 2007) 31.
[3] Victor Segesvary, ‘Group rights: The definition of group rights in the contemporary legal debate based on socio-cultural analysis’ (1995) Intl J Group Rights 89.
[4] Steven Curry, ‘Indigenous Rights’ in Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone, Protecting Human Rights Instruments and Institutions (OUP, Oxford 2003).
[5] Peter Jones, ‘Human Rights, Group Rights, and Peoples’ Rights’ (1999) 21 Hum Rts Q 80.
[6] J Crawford, The Rights of Peoples (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998) 60.
[7] J Anaya, of the Indian Law Resource Centre, ‘Collective Rights’ (Statement made at the fourth open-ended Inter-Sessional WGDD, Geneva, 2 December 1998).
[8] W Kymlica, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (OUP, Oxford 1995) 35 as quoted in Patrick Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (MUP, Manchester 2002) p 7.
[9] James Anaya, ‘International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: The Move Toward the Multi-cultural State’ (2004) 21 Ariz J Intl & Comp L 13.
[10] United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007. (Document A/61/L.67 adopted on 13 September 2007).
[11] Charter of the United Nations, 1945. (The preamble is formulated in the name of ‘the peoples of the United Nations.’) See, I Brownlie, ‘The Rights of Peoples in Modern International Law’ in J Crawford, The Rights of Peoples (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998).
[12] UNESCO Doc. 20 C/3/1.2, 1978. For further discussion on the preparation and content of the Declaration, see N Lerner Group Rights and Discrimination under International Law (International Studies in Human Rights, Dordrecht: Nijhoff 1991) p 155.
[13] Ibid art 3.
[14] Harriet Ketley, ‘Exclusion by Definition: Access to International Tribunals for the Enforcement of the Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2001) 8 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 331-368, p 339.
[15] International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966 UNGAR 2106 (XX) of December 21, 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969.
[16] Ibid art 1(4).
[17] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.
[18] Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993, reprinted in (1992) 31 ILM 818.
[19] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58 (African Charter) (see art 19, 20, 21. 22 and 23).
[20] See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UNHR) art 17.
[21] See American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 entered into force 18 July 1978, art 21.
[22] See American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, OAS Res XXX adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States (1948) reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the International American System OEA/Ser L V/II.82 Doc 6 Rev 1 at 17 (1992) art XXIII.
[23] See Protocol (No. 1) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 20 March 1952, Europ.T.S. No. 9, at art 1 (1952) (entered into force 18 May 1954).
[24] See Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observation by Peru of the Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 (No.169), Made Under Article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP), GB.273/14/4, Nov. 1998, 32(b) (emphasizing the “collective aspects” of the relationship of indigenous peoples with land, and that “when communally owned indigenous lands are divided and assigned to individuals or third parties [as permitted by Peruvian law] this often weakens the exercise of their rights by the community or the indigenous peoples and in general they may end up losing all or most of the land, resulting in a general reduction of the resources that are available to indigenous peoples when they own their lands communally”).
[25] See Case of the Mayagna (sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, 2002 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ser. C), No. 79 (Aug. 31, 2001); Mary and Carrie Dann, Case 11.140, Inter-American Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, Case 12.053, Inter-American CHR, Report No. 40/04, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.122, doc. 5 rev. 1 (2004).
[26] James Anaya, ‘Indian Givers: What Indigenous Peoples have contributed to International Human Rights Law’ (2006) 22 Washington University Law Policy 114.
[27] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) art 27.
[28] This point is made and elaborated upon in Douglas Sanders, ‘Collective Rights’ (1991) 13 Hum Rts Q 368.
[29] ICCPR art 27 (n 27).
[30] Communications No 167/1984, Human Rights Committee, Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc A/45/40 (1990). See D McGoldrick, ‘Canadian Indians, Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee’ (1991) 40 ICLQ 658. quoted in Sarah Pritchard, ‘Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights’ ch 14, 197.
[31] Ibid para 32.2.
[32] Kitok v Sweden (Communication No. 197/1985), following the view expressed by the Human Rights Committee in Lovelace v Canada (No. 24/1977), where it was acknowledged that measures taken in order to protect the group right might be upheld in the face of the conflicting claim of a group member: para 15. See also Jane Wright ‘Minority Groups, Autonomy, and Self-Determination’ 19 OJLS 605 at 609.
[33] Case No. 7615 (Brazil), Inter-Am. Commission Res. No. 12/85 (Mar. 5, 1985), Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1984-1985, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc. 10, rev. 1, at 24, 31 (1985).
[34] Ibid at p 29-31.
[35] Osvaldo Kreimer, ‘Collective Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Inter-American Human Rights System, organization of American States’ (2000) 94 American Society International Law Proc. 315.
[36] Garth Nettheim, ‘Peoples’ and ‘Populations’: Indigenous Peoples and the Rights of Peoples’ in James Crawford, (ed) The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1st edn Clarendon Press: Oxford 1995) 107.
[37] Marshall (Mikmaq Tribal Society) v Canada, Communication No. 205/1986, UN Doc. CCPR/C/43/D/2051986 (1991); Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Communication No. 167/1984, UN Doc CCPR/C/41/D/167/1984 (1990).
[38] Rhona K M Smith, The Right to Self-Determination (3rd edn OUP, Oxford 2007) ch 17.
[39] Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169), June 27, 1989, International Labour Conference (entered into force 5 September 1990).
[40] Supra n 2 at 167. (However, in art 1, it is stated that the ‘use of the term “peoples” in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under international law’).
[41] Supra n 2 at 168.
[42] GA Res, 'Self-Determination' (1958); GA Res 1514 (XV), 'Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples' (1960). The principle has been defined extensively in GA Res 2625 (XXV), 'Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations' (1970). The ICCPR and the ICESCR share a common art 1 guaranteeing self-determination.
[43] Rick Kearns, ‘UN Declaration becomes law of the land in Bolivia’ Indian Country Today (America 10 December 2007) (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id =1096416238 accessed on 15 January 2008).
[44] UN News Centre, ‘United Nations adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (13 September 2007)
[45]
About the Author
Adv.Abhaykumar Dilip Ostwal
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
B.S.L. LL.B. LL.M. (University of Birmingham, UK), C.C.F.&M.J. (Gold Medallist), D.I.T.
Comments
