Recent legal victories affirm rights of indigenous peoples to ownership and control of their ancestral lands - pressure on holdout nations mounts
by Perry H. Chesnut, Editor NRN
Published January 14, 2009
On January 8, 2009, we published the UN press release in which the special rapporteur for indigenous rights praised the Nicaraguan government for demarcating and granting legal title to ancestral lands belonging to the Awas Tingni Community, an indigenous people who occupy an area on the Atlantic Coast of the country.
This victory of a small indigenous community came after more than a decade of struggle and is important for indigenous people not only in the Americas, but around the world because, as stated by the press release, "This was the first case in which an international tribunal with legally binding authority found a Government in violation of the collective land rights of an indigenous group, setting an important precedent in international law."
Although the United States and Canada are members and purport to be staunch supporters of the Organization of American States (OAS), both have failed to ratify the organization's American Convention on Human Rights. Such ratification not only adopts the articles of the convention that define the duties and obligations of nation-states to indigenous peoples, but also serves as a legally binding acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.
Despite their much-trumpted claims of being champions of human rights, the U.S. and Canada have a long history of rejecting international declarations of the rights of indigenous peoples. As everyone who follows these issues knows, out of the entire UN General Assembly, only the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand voted against the UN DRIP that was enacted on September 13, 2007. And as we reported recently in OAS Moves Forward on DRIP Tailored to Needs of Indigenous Peoples in Western Hemisphere - U.S. Expresses "Reservations", the "U.S. government has submitted statements to the [OAS] working group outlining its general reservations about the outcome of each negotiation session" in the drafting of an OAS American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
It seems obvious that the U.S. and Canada are unlikely to ratify any human rights treaty that would allow aggrieved Indian tribes and nations to bring cases against them in any international tribunal - for the very reason that such tribunals are not captive instruments of the powerful global corporations that control U.S. and Canadian policy. For the present, U.S. and Canadian indigenous groups must resort to their own national courts and legislatures, which are riddled with obvious conflicts of interest and hardly unbiased.
Having said this, however, I should note that of the OAS' thirty-five member nations, twenty-four have ratified the Convention on Human Rights and twenty-two have officially accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. For these nations, the decision is a legally binding precedent that upholds the right of indigenous peoples to ownership and control of their ancestral homelands. As James Anaya, who was present at the land titling ceremony said, "In addition, it provides a model for other Governments to comply with their international legal obligations to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands and resources in practice."
This landmark decision upholding Indigenous land rights is the first to come from an international tribunal. But there have been similar decisions won by indigenous groups in the supreme courts of their own countries (Mayan Indians in Belize in October 2007, and Indians in Brazil in December 2008). One suspects that a tidal wave of international public opinion recognizing the important role that indigenous peoples play in the protection of the planet and its ecosystems, as well as the growing global demand for basic human rights is now beginning to drive court decisions. If so, it will not be long before countries that refuse to sign and live up to human rights and indigenous rights treaties will be seen as pariah states that intend to continue their past practices of genocide, colonialism and exploitation of their native populations. Eventually, the citizens of hold-out countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand will demand that their governments sign and ratify the various human rights treaties and live up to their responsibilities as members of the greater global community.
One final point I would like to make regarding the Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua case. The Awas Tingni Community would not have made it to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights had they not received the ongoing legal assistance of the Indian Law Resource Center with offices in Helena, Montana and Washington, D.C. Mr. James Anaya, Professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and member of the Indian Law Resource Center; Ms. Maria Luisa Acosta, associate attorney in Nicaragua; and Mr. Todd Crider of the firm Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett all assisted the Awas Tingni in bringing their case before the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and served as "Legal Advisors to the Commission" in its pursuit of the case in the international court.
For more information about this landmark case in international law upholding the land rights of indigenous peoples, you can find links to copies of the complaint and the court's decision, as well as an archive of articles that have been written about the case on this page at the Indian Law Resource Center.
__________________________________________________________
© Copyright Alliance for Indigenous Rights 2009
Native Rights News hereby grants permission for this article or portions of it to be copied and republished on condition that the author and Native Rights News is given attribution. In addition, if the article or a portion of it is published over the Internet, a link to this page must be included.
--
Posted By Perry Chesnut, Editor to Native Rights News at 1/14/2009 09:41:00 AM
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Recent Legal Victories Uphold Indigenous Land Rights
Read more!
OAS Moves Forward on DRIP Taylored to Needs of Indigenous Peoples
Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples moves forward
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: January 9, 2009
Story Updated: January 9, 2009
Around 50 indigenous representatives from the Americas attended the special session Dec. 9-12 at OAS headquarters in the Simón Bolívar Room. The OAS is an international body comparable to the United Nations that consists of 35 nations in the Americas. It is the region's principal multilateral forum for strengthening democracy, promoting human rights, and dealing with shared problems such as poverty, terrorism, illegal drugs and corruption, and carries out mandates established by the hemisphere's leaders. Visit the group's Web site at http://oas.org/.
The working group is involved in final revisions of the text, working out issues related to the process of negotiation, and pinpointing the particular issues unique to the hemisphere's indigenous peoples that should be reflected in the declaration.
December's special session was not a negotiating session, but nevertheless presented challenges, said Leonardo Crippa, a Kolla member from Argentina, and staff attorney at the Indian Law Resource Center, which has been participating in the process of developing the American Declaration since its beginning in 1989. The center's Web site can be viewed at http://indianlaw.org/.
"In negotiating sessions we usually negotiate the language that will be in the text of the American Declaration, but this time even though there were no negotiations there were some challenges, for instance, the identification of the particularities of the region that this American Declaration should reflect. That was challenging because we needed to reach some sort of agreement between the indigenous representatives and the state representatives," Crippa said.
There is consensus among the indigenous representatives, but one of the major challenges has been to get the U.S. government under the Bush administration to ratify any human rights treaty. The U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the only four nations that voted against adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007.
The U.S. government has submitted statements to the working group outlining its general reservations about the outcome of each negotiation session. It also submitted 10 principles of the rights of indigenous peoples that it believes were already achieved in the negotiation process.
"And by doing this the U.S. basically said, 'Well, since we are submitting our general reservations on this with the 10 principles, we're not going to be involved actively in the discussions,' and that's what they've been doing for almost one year."
Canada and Columbia fall in line with whatever the U.S. wants.
The U.S. still sends representatives to the sessions, but they are observers only and not actively involved. There is hope that will change with the Obama administration, he said.
The American Declaration will complement the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Whereas the U.N. Declaration makes a universal and broad statement of rights, the American Declaration will address the particular needs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Crippa said the special session in December was successful in defining the articles of the Draft American Declaration that are close to agreement and will become part of the negotiation sessions this year, and in identifying the regional particularities that should be reflected in the Draft American Declaration.
In Columbia, for example, there is an internal armed conflict that is imposing human rights violations on indigenous peoples there, Crippa said. Another regional particularity is the regularity with which states fail to comply with treaties they've signed with indigenous peoples. And there is the case of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in the Amazon and regional countries like Peru, Columbia and Ecuador.
The sensitive areas basically relate to property rights, land uses, natural resources, self government and self determination.
Indigenous peoples are threatened by destructive industrial projects on or near their territories – mining, oil drilling, construction and logging. This is an issue faced both by American Indian tribes and indigenous peoples in developing countries.
"And a big particularity is the existence of indigenous peoples with their own judicial system, with their own government, with their own legislative organizations which is something that is occurring here in the U.S.," Crippa said.
These issues often end up in U.S. courts with rulings against the tribes. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will provide the standards for the administration of justice and the OAS to provide the international venue to adjudicate these cases.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is an autonomous organ of the OAS and is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The commission has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The other human rights body is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is located in San José, Costa Rica.
"Both the Inter American Commission and the court will interpret the American Declaration because they will have jurisdiction to do that legal work whenever they have a case concerning human rights violations of indigenous peoples," Crippa said.
That means the American Declaration will, in fact, be more effective on the ground than the U.N. Declaration because it will be implemented through an already existing court system. At the U.N. level, there is no international human rights court.
"It's a big difference," he said.
He said the Inter-American Court and domestic courts in Mexico and central and South America have already used the standards of the Draft American Declaration in deciding indigenous cases, so a body of case law is being built that will set precedent for future legal actions.
Just as most international human rights laws started out as declarations, the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first step toward becoming an international convention or treaty.
The working group will hold meetings in Washington Jan. 26-30 and March 23-27. Once the indigenous and state representatives agree on the language of the declaration, the working group will submit the text to the OAS General Assembly for adoption by a vote of all the American member states.
"I think some time in 2010 it will be adopted."
© 1998 - 2009 Indian Country Today
Native Rights News is making this material from Indian Country Today available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/13/2009 08:42:00 AM
Read more!
