United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; Aboriginal Law Research Unit --- "UNESCO -- International Protector (International Strategy; Defending Aboriginal Cultures)" [1985] AboriginalLawB 84; (1985) 1(17) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 20

• Unesco – International Protector
• International Strategy
• Defending Aboriginal Cultures

---

UNESCO – International Protector

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

International Strategy

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has established procedures which enable it to examine matters involving the exercise of human rights 'in the spheres of its competence' (i.e. education, science, culture and information).

These procedures may be of potential interest to organisations who may want to raise, before an international forum, some threat to Aboriginal culture such as a proposed desecration of a sacred site.

The UNESCO procedures authorise its Committee on Conventions and Recommendations to consider communications addressed to UNESCO 'concerning cases and questions of violations of human rights within UNESCO's fields of competence.

Such a communication is admissible if it originates from a person or group 'who, it can be reasonably presumed, are victims of an alleged violation' of human rights in the field of education, science, culture and information. 'It may also originate from any person, group of persons or non-governmental organisation having reliable knowledge of those violations'.

There are several other conditions of admissibility of such a communication: it must not be anonymous, offensive or an abuse of the right to submitcommunications; it must not be based exclusively on information disseminated through the mass media; it must be compatible with relevant internation instruments in the field of human rights; It must not be manifestly ill-founded and must appear to contain relevant evidence; it must be submitted within a reasonable time; it should indicate whether an attempt has been made to exhaust available domestic remedies, and with what result.

When he receives such a communication the UNESCO Director-General shall, with the authors agreement, transmit it to the govemment concerned for its response and to the Committee. The Committee will consider the communication and other material in private session, may requestadditional information and may put questions to the representative of the government concerned. The Committee shall decide whether the communication is admissible. If it is admissible, the Committee shall dismiss it if, upon examination of the merits, it does not appear to warrant further action; communications which do warrant further consideration 'shall be acted upon by the Committee with a view to helping to bring about a friendly solution...’

The Committee shall submit confidential reports about its work under these procedures to the Executive Board of UNESCO at each session. 'The reports shall also contain recommendations which the Committee may wish to make either generally or regarding the disposition of a communication under consideration'.

Certain questions maybe considered by the Executive Board and the General Conference of UNESCO in public session, namely ‘questions of massive, systematic or flagrant violations of human fights and fundamental freedoms - including, for example, those perpetrated as a result of policies of aggression, interference in the internal affairs of States, occupation of foreign territory and implementation of a policy of colonialism, genocide, apartheid, racialism, or national and social oppression - falling within UNESCO's fields of competence'.

These procedures cannot produce a judicial decision or any sort of coercive action. But they can allow a genuine complaint, properly presented, to be ventilated before an influential international agency with whatever persuasive effect that may have on the govemment concemed.

ALRU Briefing Paper, November1983.

Supplement to Aboriginal Law Notes;

83/7, November. 1981

Defending Aboriginal Cultures

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has been concerned for some while for the protection and development of indigenous cultures. In this context the ideas of ethnoclde and ethno-development are emerging.

An important Latin-American conference on these issues was held in Costa Rica at the end of 1981. An African conference was held in UpperVolta at the beginning of 1983. A European conference was held in Norway in June 1983.

The Declaration of San Jose, set out below, gives some idea of the thinking behind these new concepts:

For the past few years, increasing concern has been expressed at various international forums over the problem of the loss of cultural identify among the indian populations of Latin America. This complex process, which has historical, social, political and economic roots, has been termed etnocide.

Ethnocide means that an ethnic group is denied the rightto enjoy, develop and transmit its own culture and its own language, whether collectivelyor individually. This involves an extreme form of massive violation of human rights and, in particular, the right olethnicgroups to respect for their cultural identity, as established by numerous declarations, covenants and agreements of the United Nations and its Specialised Agencies, as well as various regional intergovernmental bodies and numerous non-governmental organisations.

Organisations representing various indigenous groups in Latin America and experts in the field have proclaimed, with growing insistence, the need to counter ethnocide and to set in motion an authentic process of emnodeaelopment, that is, the establishment and application of policies guaranteeing ethnic groups the free enjoyment of their own cultures.

In response to this demand, Unesco organised an international meeting on ethnocide and ethnodevelopment in Latin America, in collaboration with FLACSO, which was held in December 1981 in San Jose, Costa Rica.

The particpants in the meeting, Indian and other experts, made thefollowing in a Declaration:

1. We declare that ethnocide, that is, cultural genocide, is a violation of international law equivalent to genocide, which was condemned by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

2. We affirm that ethno-development is an inalienable right of indian groups.

3. By ethno-development we mean the extension and consolidation of the elements of its own culture, through strengthening the independent decision-making capacity of a culturally distinct society to direct its own development and exercise self-determination, at whatever level, which implies an equitable and independent share of power. This means that the ethnic group is a political and administrative unit, with authority over its own territory and decision-making powers within the confines of its development project, in a process of increasing autonomy and self-management...

7. The Indian peoples have a natural and inalienable right to the territories they possess as well as the right to recover the land taken away from them. This implies the right to the natural and cultural heritage that this territory contains and the right to determine freely how it will be used and exploited ...

8. An essential partof the cultural heritage of mesa peoples is their philosophy of life and their experience, knowledge and achievements accumulated throughout history in the cultural, social, political, legal, scientific and technological sphere. They therefore have a right to accessto and use, dissemination and transmission of this entire heritage ...

11. Disregard for these principles constitutes a gross violation of the right of all individuals and peoples to bedifferent, toconsiderthemselvesasdfrererdandto be regarded as such, a right recognised in the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice adopted by the Unesco General Conference in 1978, and should therefore be condemned, especially when it creates a risk of etnocide ...

The participants appeal to the conscienceotthe scientific community, and the individuals comprising it, who have the moral responsibility for ensuring that theirreseorch, studies and practices, as well astheconclusianstheydraw, cannot be used as a pretext for misrepresentation or interpretations which could harm indian nations, peoples and ethnic groups.

Finally, the participants draw attention to the need to provide for due participation by genuine representatives of Indian nations, peoples and ethnic groups in any activity that might affect their future.

San Jose, 11 December1981

ALRU Briefing Paper, May, 1983