24 research outputs found
The inter-related implications for Arctic Indigenous Peoples
No full textDr. Dalee Sambo Dorough, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA, talks here in the NRF 6th open assembly in Hveragerði, Iceland, in September of 2011.
The sessions name is Humanity, communities, Minds, Perceptions and Knowledge on Ice.
Please click on the link above to see the video
Commentary on \u3cem\u3eThe Ongoing Indigenous Political Enterprise: What\u27s Law Got to Do with It?\u3c/em\u3e
No full textProfessor Hakimi reviews Dalee Sambo Dorough\u27s article, The Ongoing Indigenous Political Enterprise: What\u27s Law Got to Do with It?, highlighting three tensions she defines within the article and the strengths and weaknesses of Dorough\u27s examination of these three tensions
The status and rights of indigenous peoples in international law : the quest for equality
No full textMy thesis is that Indigenous peoples, as distinct people, are entitled to the full affirmation and explicit recognition of the right to self-determination in the context of the draft U N Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in international law generally. The international community, and in particular, the nation-state members of the United Nations must uphold their legally binding international obligations in this regard. My methodology has been to utilize the human rights framework and approach, as well as rights discourse to advance this thesis. In addition, I am relying upon my direct participation in this important standard setting process, as well as the writings of various publicists. The right of peoples to self-determination is considered by numerous international authorities to be jus cogens or a peremptory norm. Similarly, the prohibition of racial discrimination is considered by numerous authorities to be a peremptory norm. Throughout the draft Declaration debate, a number of states have proposed wording that would dramatically alter the scope and content of the right to selfdetermination, thereby limiting, qualifying or modifying this right in the context of indigenous peoples. Any state proposals to qualify, limit or modify the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination would be racially discriminatory. If Article 3 of the draft Declaration were to be altered - even to include the same or similar notions as might currently exist under international law - it would invite interpretations to be applied to indigenous peoples\u27 right to self-determination that are different from those of other peoples. It might also have the effect of wrongfully freezing the interpretation of this indigenous human right, in such a manner as to prevent or otherwise stifle its natural evolution under international law. If there is no equality of application of the rule of law in the context of international law and states succeed in introducing discriminatory double standards in connection to indigenous peoples and their fundamental right to self-determination, then the failure of the human rights framework, the United Nations system and nation-states themselves will seriously erode the very concepts of democracy, human rights and the rule of law
The status and rights of indigenous peoples in international law : the quest for equality
No full textMy thesis is that Indigenous peoples, as distinct people, are entitled to the full
affirmation and explicit recognition of the right to self-determination in the context of the
draft U N Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in international law
generally. The international community, and in particular, the nation-state members of
the United Nations must uphold their legally binding international obligations in this
regard.
My methodology has been to utilize the human rights framework and approach, as
well as rights discourse to advance this thesis. In addition, I am relying upon my direct
participation in this important standard setting process, as well as the writings of various
publicists.
The right of peoples to self-determination is considered by numerous international
authorities to be jus cogens or a peremptory norm. Similarly, the prohibition of racial
discrimination is considered by numerous authorities to be a peremptory norm.
Throughout the draft Declaration debate, a number of states have proposed
wording that would dramatically alter the scope and content of the right to selfdetermination,
thereby limiting, qualifying or modifying this right in the context of
indigenous peoples.
Any state proposals to qualify, limit or modify the right of indigenous peoples to
self-determination would be racially discriminatory. If Article 3 of the draft Declaration
were to be altered - even to include the same or similar notions as might currently exist
under international law - it would invite interpretations to be applied to indigenous
peoples' right to self-determination that are different from those of other peoples. It
might also have the effect of wrongfully freezing the interpretation of this indigenous
human right, in such a manner as to prevent or otherwise stifle its natural evolution under
international law.
If there is no equality of application of the rule of law in the context of
international law and states succeed in introducing discriminatory double standards in
connection to indigenous peoples and their fundamental right to self-determination, then
the failure of the human rights framework, the United Nations system and nation-states
themselves will seriously erode the very concepts of democracy, human rights and the
rule of law.Law, Faculty ofGraduat
Recommended from our members
Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination and Other Rights Related to Access to Justice: Normative Framework
No full textWhen speaking of Indigenous Peoples and access to justice, it is important to understand the historical contextual framework for the litany of injustices perpetrated against Indigenous Peoples in order to determine if we can in fact ever “reconcile” the dramatically different worldviews of Indigenous Peoples and others, and in particular nation-States. In my view, the cultural clashes experienced by most, if not all, Indigenous Peoples across the globe have crystallized or hardened to the point that full reconciliation may not ever be possible. I have been asked to provide an overview of the normative framework needed to begin to right the wrongs concerning access to justice, including truth and reconciliation. The normative framework necessary has been established by the Declaration—the most comprehensive international human rights instrument specifically concerning Indigenous Peoples. And, in this regard, the Declaration articles must be read as a whole and in context. Like all other human rights, these minimum standards are inter-related, inter-dependent, indivisible, and inter-connected. I would like to emphasize the right of self-determination and a number of articles relevant to the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, then conclude with a few comments on developments in Alaska, as a hopeful example of improving access to justice through Indigenous self-determination and “partnership” or cooperation with others
