The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007. This year marks the tenth anniversary of it. Before its adoption, the declaration had been 25 years in the making. The original idea stems largely from the so-called Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) which was set up in 1982 to deal with discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. In 1985, the group started working on the declaration’s draft. It was finished in 1993, submitted and went through several commissions examining it. Mentions of rights to self-determination, rights to self-government, rights to control resources on traditional lands and access to territories especially slowed down the approval of the draft.
When the declaration was adopted in September 2007, 144 states voted for it, 11 abstained (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine) and 4 countries voted against it (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States). The four countries that voted against the declaration in 2007 explained their initial rejection of the declaration with legal concerns over its content, lack of clear instructions for implementation and in some cases, and conflicts with existing national declarations of rights.
However, since 2007, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States have changed their stance and now support it as the legally non-binding document it is. As a declaration, it is not a legally binding document in any form. However, the United Nations sees the declaration as a ‘significant tool towards eliminating human rights violations (…) and assisting [indigenous people] in combating discrimination and marginalization”, representing countries’ commitment, setting and encouraging standards.
The 23 preambular clauses and 46 articles of the declaration deal with a vast range of issues ranging from rights to lands or resources, historical grievances or contemporary issues, to rights of self-government, protection of languages, cultures etc., emphasizing indigenous peoples’ ”rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education (…)”, to “their own institutions, cultures, and traditions, and to pursue their development” as well as ”socio-economic, political and cultural aspirations”. Another explicit intention mentioned by the United Nations is that the declaration should function as a way for indigenous causes to get international attention
The vast range of content, thegeneral wording of articles and topics, the fact that it is in scope but does not refer to any specific nations, areas, or continents, the lack of instructions for implementation orf concrete measurements, and the fact that as a declaration it has no legally binding power r inevitably raise many questions about the function or purpose of it.
Reactions and Effects of the Declaration in the United States
Nonetheless, based on provisions in the declaration, a number of policies have been adopted in the U.S., including The Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples (2014), The Fish and Wildlife’s Service Native American Policy (2016) and The Tribal Consultation Policy (2017). What these policies mean in reality for tribes is another question.
Alternative Approaches chosen by other countries
Other countries, most prominently Ecuador and Bolivia, have made reforms to their own countries’ constitutions during the last decade, recognizing the rights of both nature and of indigenous people constitutionally. These reforms, summarized under the concept of Sumak Kawsay (a Quechua term referring to the principle of human beings living in harmony with each other and with nature). At the same time, the new constitutions cemented extractivism rights more explicitly, with the idea to support the protection of indigenous rights and nature rights with money made off of natural resources.
Challenges
Effective implementation of changes based on its articles remain the biggest challenge of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people. Any actual implementations of a legally non-binding declaration demand proactive action by governments themselves on behalf of the declaration, which is problematic. U.N. special rapporteurs generally criticize effectiveness and progress made in regard to the declaration themselves. Considering this, one is left to wonder if it is not more effective to look at indigenous issues as part of the larger global reality of the present-day world and near future.