Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
A central goal of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004) is the adoption of a declaration on Indigenous rights.[1] Between 1985 and 1993, a five member independent Working Group on Indigenous Populations (`the WGIP'), in dialogue with Indigenous representatives and government observers, prepared a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (`the draft declaration'). In November 1995, an inter-governmental working group of the Commission on Human Rights (`the CHR Working Group') met for the first time to consider the draft declaration. At its first session, the CHR Working Group subjected the draft declaration to a preliminary reading. At its second session, held 21 October-1 November 1996, a general discussion of the provisions of the WGIP's text was continued.
Debate at these first sessions revealed the existence of widely divergent understandings with respect to the substance of Indigenous peoples' rights and many of the central concepts underlying the declaration. As was stated on behalf of ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat (NAILSS) during the second session:
`Discussion of the right to self-determination at this and the previous session of this Working Group has revealed the significant gulfs of understanding which exist between Indigenous participants and Member States in relation to many of the central concepts underlying the Declaration. It is by no means clear that Member States have developed a full and accurate understanding of what Indigenous peoples mean when we use concepts such as choice, control, consent, equality of participation, and when we speak of our collective rights.`[2]However, prior to and inseparable from questions of substance are issues relating to the participation of Indigenous representatives in the deliberations of the new working group. The agreed modalities for Indigenous participation have far-reaching implications for the distinct international personality of Indigenous peoples and their standing within the international community, as well as for the possibility of consensus concerning the adoption of the declaration. In a sense, the methods of work eventually adopted in the working group will indicate whether the consensus necessary for resolution of divergent positions and understandings is likely to be forthcoming. The purpose of the present note is to provide some comments on the working methods of the new working group.
The WGIP was entrusted with two principal tasks: to review developments pertaining to the human rights of Indigenous populations, and to give attention to the evolution of standards concerning the rights of such populations.[3] The WGIP held its first session in August 1982 in Geneva. In 1985, at its fourth session, the WGIP decided to produce `a draft declaration on Indigenous rights' for eventual adoption and proclamation by the UN General Assembly.[4] In 1993, at the eleventh session, the WGIP's five expert members agreed upon a final text.
In 1994, the WGIP submitted the declaration to its parent body, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (`the Sub-Commission').[5] The members of the WGIP considered that the text `was comprehensive and reflected the legitimate aspirations of Indigenous peoples as a whole, as well as a number of suggestions and concerns advanced by Observer Governments.'[6]
At its forty-sixth session in August 1994, the Sub-Commission adopted the text transmitted by the WGIP and decided to submit it to its parent body, the Commission on Human Rights (`the CHR').[7] On 3 March 1995, the Cdecided:
The CHR inter-governmental working group, referred to by the unwieldy title `Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995' held its first session in Geneva 20 November-1 December 1995.[9] A second session was held from 21 October-1 November 1996.
The new CHR Working Group had to decide the fate of the text prepared by the
WGIP.[10] Prior to the session, there was
concern that one or more delegations might table an alternate draft text or
propose that the drafting
process begin anew. Such concern was fuelled by the
ambiguous reference in Cresolution 1995/32 to the elaboration of `
Chairperson Urrutia avoided a threshold debate on the question, adopting the
suggestion of Indigenous representatives that the WGIP's
text be the subject of
a general debate, and then reviewed part by part in order to identify where
there was general consensus and
which articles would require greater
deliberation.[11] Despite a
caution by Brazil that the draft did not necessarily reflect the views of those
States which had attended the WGIP, most
State delegations supported using the
WGIP draft as a working text, whilst expressing reservations of both a
technical and philosophical
nature about particular aspects.
At the end of the first session, it was possible to conclude that `[i]n
general, both Governments and Indigenous organizations agreed
that the draft
"United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples" as adopted by
the Sub-Commission constituted a sound
basis for discussions to come.'[12]
At the first session of the CHR Working Group, numerous, in particular Asian,
delegations pressed the desirability of defining the
term `Indigenous' as a
threshold issue. In the view of China, a precise definition was `necessary and
imperative' and `the question
of indigenous peoples ... the product of European
countries' pursuit of colonial policies in other parts of the world'. In their
view, properly defined, Indigenous peoples do not exist in Asia generally or
China in particular. According to Malaysia, Indigenous
peoples do not exist in
countries in which the original inhabitants were not put on reservations, but
`live in harmony' in one society.
India explained that the declaration was
never intended to cover situations `where the entire population of a country
can be said
to be indigenous', rather those where `the original inhabitants
were overrun by settlers from overseas dispossessed and reduced to
marginal
groups in their own lands.' Bangladesh stated that in Asia, `tribal'
populations are no more `indigenous' than their non-tribal
neighbours. The
representative of Bangladesh suggested that the declaration should focus on the
`unique case of injustice' in the
Americas and Oceania, where the Indigenous
inhabitants were subjected to the `alien values of an alien culture,
dispossession and
near extermination' and `have not benefited from the process
of decolonisation.'
A number of Latin American and European States, including Brazil, Mexico,
Norway, Ukraine and the USA suggested that defining the
term `Indigenous' might
be useful as a way of distinguishing Indigenous peoples from minorities.[13] Other State delegations, including
Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, France and Aotearoa/New Zealand, rejected
the need to agree
on a definition, at least at such an early stage of
deliberations. A number suggested that adequate guidance could be found in the
definition proposed by Special Rapporteur Martinez Cobo or employed in the
International Labour Organisation Convention Concerning
Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169) (Australia, Brazil, Denmark--on
behalf of the five Nordic countries--Mexico,
Peru, Philippines, Switzerland).
The debate soon resulted in a stalemate. Bangladesh, recognising that other
delegations were keen to begin discussion of the substantive
provisions of the
declaration, hoped that parallel work on definition might `begin in earnest'.
The representative referred to a
`special bond' with Indigenous peoples arising
from colonialism, and stressed the importance of distinguishing between
Indigenous
peoples who have gained independence and those who continue to be
dominated by alien societies. He suggested that, unless such a
distinction is
made, the international community would be confronted by a `proliferation of
pretenders' to Indigenous status.
The second session of the CHR Working Group saw little debate on definition.
Bangladesh, for example, took the floor for the first
time on the penultimate
afternoon of the session in order to respond to an intervention by the
Secretariat of the International Labour
Organisation. Almost as an aside, the
delegation made the following remarks on definition:
Since the first session of the WGIP in 1982, flexible and innovative rules of
procedure have meant that Indigenous peoples' representatives
enjoy
unrestricted access to its meetings and that its processes enjoy an exceptional
level of legitimacy amongst Indigenous representatives.
Working groups at the
level of the CHR, by contrast, do not permit participation of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), unless
these have obtained consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). At present, only twelve Indigenous
organisations
have acquired consultative status, amongst these ATSIC and
NAILSS. At the level of the CHR, participation of NGOs is largely restricted
to
statements in formal debates. Even properly accredited NGOs have generally been
precluded from submitting formal drafting proposals
at drafting sessions, where
decisions are taken by a consensus of participating governments.[16]
With the decision of the CHR to submit the declaration to a new working group,
it became necessary to consider issues of Indigenous
access and participation.
As the Chairperson of the WGIP, Professor Erica-Irene Daes, commented in Sydney
in July 1995:
The subtext of resolution 1995/32 is that governments have the power to veto
the participation of particular Indigenous groups in
the further consideration
of the draft declaration. The ECOSOC committee consists of nineteen UN Member
States; its decisions are
accordingly political. Moreover, the committee meets
ordinarily only once every second year. Special provision has been made to
convene
irregular meetings for processing applications for accreditation to
participate in the CWorking Group. pro tem, representing the Secretariat, declined
to give the floor to Indigenous NGOs to make nominations for Chairperson.
Privately, governments
had already agreed upon Peruvian Ambassador Jose
Urrutia. However, once Urrutia took the chair the floor was given to Indigenous
participants to make proposals with respect to the session's agenda and
organisation of work. During the course of the session, Indigenous
representatives and governments were given the same opportunities to
participate in the debate.
The real test of Indigenous peoples' standing will come if and when the process
of drafting begins in earnest. At that point, the
Chairperson will have to
decide whether the support of Indigenous NGOs for a proposal is necessary in
order for there to be consensus.[18] At the
first session, it was decided to defer the process of drafting as such, and
instead to review the text part by part in order
to identify where there was
general consensus and which articles would require greater deliberation.
At the second session, questions relating to Indigenous participation became
critical. On Monday 21 October, the Chairperson presented
an agenda which
anticipated discussion of particular groupings of articles. A statement on
behalf of the Indigenous caucus called
for the immediate adoption of the
declaration `without change, amendment or deletion.'[19] Concerned that the `article grouping ... would have lead
to possible amendments'[20]
and `future dismemberment of the Draft Declaration,'[21] the Indigenous caucus recommended that there first be a
general debate on the fundamental issues and concepts of the draft
declaration.[22] When the Chairperson
disregarded the proposal for a reordering of the agenda, the Indigenous caucus
withdrew from the meeting, stating:
`In this context participation should be understood not merely as our ability
to make statements or interventions, but must also
include our full
participation as partners in the decision-making process ... [T]he
Inter-Sessional Working Group's final report
to the Commission on Human Rights
must formally request the amendment of resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 to
ensure the full and
equal participation of Indigenous Peoples and Nations in
the Inter-Sessional Working Group.'[24]
On 25 October, it was stated on behalf of Indigenous delegations returning to
the plenary that their return `could not be construed
as Indigenous consent to
or acceptance of the current rules of procedure governing this process':
During the course of the second session, there was extensive informal dialogue
concerning possibilities for flexible, inclusive procedures,
including
Indigenous involvement in the consensus aspects of the working group's work.
Much of this discussion referred to possibilities
for particular `modalities of
participation' for duly accredited Indigenous representatives. `Other
modalities of participation'
are anticipated in paragraph 35 of ECOSOC
resolution 1296,[27] governing attendance at
meetings of ECOSOC commissions (including the CHR) by organisations in
consultative status with ECOSOC.
On 30 October, Indigenous and State representatives met informally to discuss
methods of work. Chairperson of that meeting, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson, later described the meeting
`as a first step towards the development
of flexible, frank and often informal
methods of work'.[28] The painstaking
discussion of working methods was continued in an informal meeting on 1
November, attended by around sixty Indigenous
and State representatives and
again chaired by Mick Dodson.
On the afternoon of 1 November, at the final plenary meeting, Indigenous
delegates proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph
in the report of
the second session:
Given the history of relationships between Indigenous peoples and nations, and
States, building new partnerships based upon understanding,
mutual respect and
the recognition of inherent Indigenous rights will require considerable
patience. In the words of Mick Dodson:
`Time is needed to engage in further
dialogue and to earn one another's trust.'[32]
It remains to be seen whether the pace which will be necessary to continue a
general dialogue on the `fundamental issues and concepts
of the declaration in
order to gain greater understanding and full agreement about these fundamental
principles'[33] will be acceptable to States
eager `to move forward and make progress'. These include States such as
Australia and Canada, the primary
initiators of UN resolutions on Indigenous
issues in the past. In this connection, at the working group's first session
Bill Barker
stated on behalf of the Australian Government delegation that the
eventual implementation of the declaration would depend on governments'
full
participation in the drafting process.[34]
During the second session, the silence of many State delegations on a majority
of provisions was conspicuous, including a number
who had voiced strong
objections during the first session.
It also remains to be seen how the CHR will respond to developments in its
working group. It appears likely that Indigenous representatives
will continue
the push for reforms in working methods at the level of the CHR itself. How
will the CHR, ECOSOC and eventually perhaps
the General Assembly respond to a
concerted push for procedural reforms?
The second session of the CHR Working Group was plagued with tension and
difficulties which resulted in the departure of a number
of Indigenous
delegations, including from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Responding to the withdrawal
of Indigenous delegations, Mick Dodson,
on behalf of Central Land Council,
Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS and the NSW Aboriginal Land
Council, stated:
`We believe that in the process of adopting a UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous peoples time is on the side of Indigenous
peoples. We continue to
believe that through perseverance with this process, it will be possible to
achieve consensus on the provisions
of the Declaration, as it presently
stands.'
Finally, on the penultimate day of the session, most participants were taken by
surprise by a statement by Canada, described by observers
as a `diplomatic
coup'. Previously implacably opposed to article 3 of the draft declaration and
its recognition of the right of Indigenous
peoples to self-determination, as
well as to the use of language of Indigenous `peoples', Canada announced
that:
`[T]he Government of Canada accepts a right of self-determination for
Indigenous peoples which respects the political, constitutional
and territorial
integrity of democratic states. In that context, exercise of the right involves
negotiations between states and the
various Indigenous peoples within these
states to determine the political status of the Indigenous peoples involved,
and the means
of pursuing their economic, social and cultural development.'
`On the question of focus, we consider it important that this declaration
clearly set "indigenous" issues apart from the question
of minorities, or
intra-cultural socio-economic exclusions, and other inequities of the nation
state--issues which are no doubt important,
but which demand to be considered
on their own right, and not allowed to clutter the international perspective on
the indigenous
issue'.
China, in a similar vein, stated in its second intervention that the
declaration `should not be diluted if it is to give effective
protection to
indigenous people', and offered the following definition of Indigenous
people:
`(i) the original people inhabiting in certain countries or geographical
regions and their descendants when these countries and regions
have been
colonized, conquered, occupied and ruled by colonial settlers from other
countries, and these peoples retain some or all
of their own social, economic,
cultural and political institutions;
Japan, also in its second intervention, suggested that a definition should be
included in the declaration and that the definition
of Martinez Cobo and that
employed in ILO Convention No. 169 might be used.[15] Malaysia took the floor numerous times in relation to
particular groupings of articles, without referring to definitional issues.
(ii) people inhabiting exclusively in
certain geographical regions with unique style of living, and thus regarded as
indigenous by
other inhabitants and governments of the countries in which they
live, and they identify themselves as indigenous.'[14]
`[T]he present text reflects an extraordinary, liberal, transparent and
democratic procedure that encouraged and unified Indigenous
input ... The real
task of the Commission on Human Rights is to guarantee the greatest possible
degree of Indigenous participation
in the further consideration and approval of
the draft declaration.'[17]
In an annex to resolution 1995/32, the CHR adopted a special procedure for
authorising the participation in the open-ended working
group of organisations
of Indigenous peoples without ECOSOC consultative status. In accordance with
this procedure, Indigenous organisations
apply to the Coordinator of the
International Decade, providing information about their aims and purposes,
programmes and activities,
and membership. The Coordinator consults with the
governments concerned, and forwards applications and relevant information to
ECOSOC's
Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations for its decision.
`On Monday, October 21st, 1996 at the opening session of the Intersessional
working group Indigenous Peoples were presented with
a finalized agenda which
had not been consented to by all states and Indigenous Peoples. It was
determined at the first Open ended
inter-sessional working group in 1995 that
decisions would be based on consensus. This did not occur during the discussion
on the
program of action ... Indigenous Peoples considered this blatant
disregard to be a serious violation of the agreed process of the
principle of
full participation and the general goodwill and spirit of cooperation [upon]
which any success in this difficult process
will depend ... [W]e as Indigenous
peoples found ourselves participating in an unequal and undemocratic process.
This is unacceptable.'[23]
On 22 October, a Joint Statement by the Indigenous Caucus urged plenary
consensus on a change of the internal rules of procedure
guiding the working
group, to provide for the equal and full participation of Indigenous peoples in
its deliberations:
`There remains a consensus that the rules are flawed and violate the spirit of
cooperation and consensus that should guide this process
... Indigenous peoples
hold a distinct place in the human family. Indigenous Peoples are different
with the right to be different
and to be respected as such. In this regard
there is a legitimate ground for the specific request to change the rules to
accommodate
the distinct status and rights of Indigenous Peoples.'[25]
Upon resumption of the meeting, all participants agreed to an amendment to the
organisation of work to first hold a general debate
on the fundamental issues
and concepts of the draft declaration. Hereafter, participants would comment on
operative paragraphs without,
however, undertaking a drafting
exercise.[26] On 28 October 1996, the
plenary meeting was adjourned early to allow an informal meeting of Indigenous
and some State representatives
to discuss the participation of Indigenous
peoples in the deliberations of the working group. Statements by Indigenous
representatives
emphasized the need for `consensual outcomes' and a `consensual
approach' to future working methods.
`Following extensive consultations, participants agreed by consensus that the
matter of full and equal participation of Indigenous
Peoples in the open-ended
inter-sessional working group ... must be ensured. [T]his Working Group
respectfully requests that the
Commission on Human Rights ... approve of and
establish a series of technical meetings to ensure the full and equal
participation
of Indigenous in this Working Group, in the context of
elaborating upon other modalities of participation.'[29]
As alternative wording, the Australian Government delegation proposed:
`Many delegations felt it was essential that steps be taken to promote
effective participation of organisations of Indigenous peoples
and consultation
before the next session of the Working Group in order to facilitate the work of
the Working Group and the clarification
and elaboration of the text of the
draft Declaration. Accordingly, the Working Group recommended that the
Commission on Human Rights
takes this into account in the action it takes on
this report.'[30]
After tense last-minute negotiations to overcome the objections of the
Government of Brazil, the following wording was agreed upon:
`Many delegations felt it was important that steps be taken to consult with
Indigenous peoples' organisations to promote effective
participation of
organisations of Indigenous peoples and consultation. The Working Group
recommended that the Commission on Human
Rights takes this into account in the
action it takes on this report.'[31]
The tasks facing the Working Group are formidable. Whether State delegations
will eventually accept consensual working methods, extending
to all aspects of
work including proposed textual amendments, is far from certain. Whether the
Indigenous caucus will continue to
maintain that any change in the WGIP's text
will constitute a dismemberment of the declaration and a dilution of Indigenous
rights
is also unclear. How State delegations will respond to a continuing
refusal of Indigenous participants to countenance any textual
amendments
remains to be seen.
`In solemnly withdrawing from this Working Group, they are exercising their
right to self-determination. We therefore respect their
decision. Whilst we are
profoundly troubled by the interruption of dialogue between representatives of
Indigenous nations and peoples
and Member States here this week, we have not
yet lost faith in the capacity of this Working Group, in time, to arrive at an
understanding
of the aspirations and entitlements of Indigenous nations and
peoples.
The joint statement urged the working group to respond positively to the
request to negotiate a change of modalities of participation
and methods of
work to accommodate the distinct status and rights of Indigenous peoples and to
secure full and equal Indigenous participation:
`Without such participation, it will be impossible to secure the understanding
and consensus which will be necessary if the Declaration
is ever to be
proclaimed by the General Assembly and make any difference in the lives of
Indigenous peoples.'
Whilst the resolution of the debate on modalities of participation is far from
certain, the second session nonetheless saw a number
of positive outcomes.
Numerous State delegations, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Fiji,
Norway, the Russian Federation
and Sweden, emphasised the fundamental
importance of the participation of Indigenous peoples. A number of States
asserted that they
will not support a declaration which does not enjoy very
broad support amongst Indigenous peoples. There was wide acceptance of the
need
for more constructive and cooperative approaches to work. There was also
recognition of the importance of ongoing, informal
consultations involving a
wide range of delegations in order to advance understanding and contribute to
the consensus that will be
necessary to conclude the work of the CHR
inter-sessional working group.
`Our goal at this Working Group will be to develop a common understanding,
consistent with evolving international law, of how this
right is to apply to
Indigenous collectivities, and what the content of this right includes. Once
achieved, this common understanding
will have to be reflected in the wording of
article 3 ...
Whilst not agreeing with all of Canada's comments, the Representative of Brazil
nonetheless felt that the statement was `very helpful
for a better
understanding of the issues.'[35] Also
responding to Canada's announcement, the International Organization of
Indigenous Resource Development stated:
`Today marks a very significant day ... We have always stated that there is a
need to recognize our right to self-determination as
peoples and I note from
this intervention that they are now using the term "Indigenous Peoples." It
should be an encouragement to
those states, like the United States, who have
had difficulty with the term "Indigenous Peoples" to also take a similar step
forward
in this long and difficult process.'
The representative of the Indian Law Resource Center, Dalee Sambo, referred to
the importance of Canada's statement, describing it
as `evidence to the
usefulness, and [a] product of, years of dialogue and lobbying by Indigenous
peoples and first nations.' Emphasising
the positive contributions made by
Canada and other governments, Dalee Sambo noted that the Canadian statement
shows that `a constructive
and meaningful dialogue can affect such changes.'
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on
behalf
of ATSIC and NAILSS, stated:
`We are enormously heartened by the statement of the Government delegation of
Canada ... on article 3. It is testimony to what is
possible in building
understanding and respect for these concepts. We urge other States who feel
some discomfort with the language
of article 3 to heed the approach taken by
Canada in reviewing its previous position on this provision. Their statement
confirms
our faith in the value and importance of this process.'[36]
The decision by one State delegation to reverse a previously held position is
not in itself a cause for unbridled optimism. It does,
however, affirm the
importance of coherent, coordinated and persistent Indigenous advocacy, as well
as of at least a handful of States
prepared to engage in informal dialogue with
Indigenous representatives and to respond flexibly to Indigenous efforts to
advance
understanding and build consensus. The Canadian experience suggests
that Indigenous leverage is a result of numbers and perseverance,
both at the
United Nations and in national capitals. It suggests the importance of pursuing
ongoing, informal consultations with
other delegations--State and
Indigenous--between sessions in Geneva, as well as of efforts to bring the
debate at the UN to the national
and community level.
[1] General Assembly resolution 50/157, 21 December 1995.
[2] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of Central Land Council, Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS, and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Friday, 25 October 1996.
[3] ECOSOC resolution 1982/34, 7 May 1982.
[4] UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1985/2, Ann II.
[5] UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1994/2/Add I.
[6] Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its Twelfth Session UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1994/30, para 133.
[7] Sub-Commission resolution 1994/45.
[8] Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32.
[9] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84.
[10] In 1985, the CHR had discarded a draft declaration on the rights and responsibilities of individuals in defending human rights: Draft Body of Principles and Guidelines on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1985/30 & Add 1.
[11] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84, paras 15-16; also R Barsh, `Indigenous Peoples and the UN Commission on Human Rights: A Case of the Immovable Object and the Irresistible Force', (1996) 18 Human Rights Quarterly 782, at 787.
[12] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84, para 21.
[13] See generally Barsh, 1996, at 791, fn 45.
[14] Draft report on the second session of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/WG 15/CRP 7 (1 November 1996), para 87.
[15] Ibid, para 93.
[16] Barsh, 1996, at 784, fn 9.
[17] E-I Daes, `Equality of Indigenous Peoples under the Auspices of the United Nations--Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples', (1995) 7 St Thomas Law Review 493, at 494.
[18] Barsh, 1996, at 786.
[19] General Comment: Statement from the Caucus of Indigenous Peoples on Monday, October 21, 1996.
[20] Statement of Indigenous Peoples Caucus to the Chairman of the Intersessional open ended working group established to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, 21st of October 1996.
[21] Reasons for the Decision taken at the Indigenous Preparatory Meeting 20th October, 1996.
[22] General Comment: Statement from the Caucus of Indigenous Peoples on Monday, October 21, 1996.
[23] Statement of Indigenous Peoples Caucus to the Chairman of the Intersessional open ended working group established to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, 21st of October, 1996.
[24] Joint Statement by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus--22 October 1996.
[25] Statement by the Indigenous Caucus--October 25, 1996.
[26] Draft report on the second session of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/WG 15/CRP 7 (1 November 1996), para 25.
[27] As updated in July 1996 by ECOSOC resolution E/1996/31 L25.
[28] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of Central Land Council, Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Friday, 25 October 1996.
[29] From the author's notes.
[30] From the author's notes.
[31] From the author's notes; subject to final editing by the Secretariat.
[32] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of ATSIC and NAILSS, Thursday, 31 October 1996.
[33] Outline of comments by Dalee Sambo Dorough, Indian Law Resource Center, October 30, 1996.
[34] Statement by Bill Barker on Behalf of the Australian Delegation, 21 November 1995, at 1.
[35] From the author's notes.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1997/13.html