Here are two of the articles in the recently adopted declaration. Howard certainly wouldn't have been able to pass his legislation if we'd been a signatory!
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters
which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in
accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own
indigenous decision-making institutions.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples
concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free,
prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or
administrative measures that may affect them.
The full document is a magnificent affirmation for Indigneous peoples the world over. Follow the link below to read the whole declaration:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/draftdeclaration.pdf
5 comments:
There are no signatories to Declarations. Only to treaties. Australia voted against the Declaration in the UN General Assembly, but no country is required to sign or ratify it, and thus it is non-binding.
Australia is, however, bound to implement 2 important human rights treaties that it has ratified: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The very first article of both these treaties is the same:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
"States Parties to the present Covenant ... shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right ..."
Indigenous groups have the legally significant status of being ‘peoples’ which carries with it the human right to self-determination. This right is not new but has been recognised in international law since at least 1945.
Declaration or no Declaration, Australia is violating international law.
Thanks for the clarification Olivia. What are the implications for a country who has ratified an agreement or a declaration but is not adhering to it? How is International Law enforced?
Ah, there's the rub. The fact is most international law cannot be enforced in the same way that home-grown law can be enforced. Transgressors – whether individuals, governments, corporations or other collective bodies – are not usually arrested, tried and punished (with occasional exceptions for war criminals, etc.). In most cases, short of using military force, countries must be shamed, persuaded and pressured into making and abiding by commitments to international human rights norms.
Ultimately, law enforcement, like law making, cannot be divorced from politics. It's been a long political process to get this Declaration adopted and that's merely one step along the way to realising the rights it proclaims.
International treaties are a little bit different in that complaints can be taken to the UN such as Stephen Hagan did in 2003: http://blog.rightsbase.org/2007/06/21/one-mans-stand/
Last year Koori teen Corey Brough won a case too:
http://blog.rightsbase.org/2006/05/21/australia-violates-rights-of-indigenous-boy/
But even then, the UN cannot enforce its decisions. It appears Hagan succeeded in shaming the sports ground into changing the name of the grandstand. I'm not sure Corey Brough has had such luck. I've written to the NSW Dept of Justice and got the brush-off.
That Corey, is he Mal's son?
I seriously doubt it!
L
Post a Comment