AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Aboriginal Law Bulletin

Aboriginal Law Bulletin (ALB)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Aboriginal Law Bulletin >> 1997 >> [1997] AboriginalLawB 13

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Pritchard, Sarah --- "The United Nations and the Making of a Declaration on Indigenous Rights" [1997] AboriginalLawB 13; (1997) 3(89) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 4

The United Nations and the Making of a Declaration on Indigenous Rights

By Sarah Pritchard

A central goal of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004) is the adoption of a declaration on Indigenous rights.[1] Between 1985 and 1993, a five member independent Working Group on Indigenous Populations (`the WGIP'), in dialogue with Indigenous representatives and government observers, prepared a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (`the draft declaration'). In November 1995, an inter-governmental working group of the Commission on Human Rights (`the CHR Working Group') met for the first time to consider the draft declaration. At its first session, the CHR Working Group subjected the draft declaration to a preliminary reading. At its second session, held 21 October-1 November 1996, a general discussion of the provisions of the WGIP's text was continued.

Debate at these first sessions revealed the existence of widely divergent understandings with respect to the substance of Indigenous peoples' rights and many of the central concepts underlying the declaration. As was stated on behalf of ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat (NAILSS) during the second session:

`Discussion of the right to self-determination at this and the previous session of this Working Group has revealed the significant gulfs of understanding which exist between Indigenous participants and Member States in relation to many of the central concepts underlying the Declaration. It is by no means clear that Member States have developed a full and accurate understanding of what Indigenous peoples mean when we use concepts such as choice, control, consent, equality of participation, and when we speak of our collective rights.`[2]
However, prior to and inseparable from questions of substance are issues relating to the participation of Indigenous representatives in the deliberations of the new working group. The agreed modalities for Indigenous participation have far-reaching implications for the distinct international personality of Indigenous peoples and their standing within the international community, as well as for the possibility of consensus concerning the adoption of the declaration. In a sense, the methods of work eventually adopted in the working group will indicate whether the consensus necessary for resolution of divergent positions and understandings is likely to be forthcoming. The purpose of the present note is to provide some comments on the working methods of the new working group.

WGIP

The WGIP was entrusted with two principal tasks: to review developments pertaining to the human rights of Indigenous populations, and to give attention to the evolution of standards concerning the rights of such populations.[3] The WGIP held its first session in August 1982 in Geneva. In 1985, at its fourth session, the WGIP decided to produce `a draft declaration on Indigenous rights' for eventual adoption and proclamation by the UN General Assembly.[4] In 1993, at the eleventh session, the WGIP's five expert members agreed upon a final text.

In 1994, the WGIP submitted the declaration to its parent body, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (`the Sub-Commission').[5] The members of the WGIP considered that the text `was comprehensive and reflected the legitimate aspirations of Indigenous peoples as a whole, as well as a number of suggestions and concerns advanced by Observer Governments.'[6]

CWorking Group

At its forty-sixth session in August 1994, the Sub-Commission adopted the text transmitted by the WGIP and decided to submit it to its parent body, the Commission on Human Rights (`the CHR').[7] On 3 March 1995, the Cdecided:

[8]

The CHR inter-governmental working group, referred to by the unwieldy title `Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995' held its first session in Geneva 20 November-1 December 1995.[9] A second session was held from 21 October-1 November 1996.

Status of the WGIP draft

The new CHR Working Group had to decide the fate of the text prepared by the WGIP.[10] Prior to the session, there was concern that one or more delegations might table an alternate draft text or propose that the drafting process begin anew. Such concern was fuelled by the ambiguous reference in Cresolution 1995/32 to the elaboration of ` draft declaration' (emphasis added).

Chairperson Urrutia avoided a threshold debate on the question, adopting the suggestion of Indigenous representatives that the WGIP's text be the subject of a general debate, and then reviewed part by part in order to identify where there was general consensus and which articles would require greater deliberation.[11] Despite a caution by Brazil that the draft did not necessarily reflect the views of those States which had attended the WGIP, most State delegations supported using the WGIP draft as a working text, whilst expressing reservations of both a technical and philosophical nature about particular aspects.

At the end of the first session, it was possible to conclude that `[i]n general, both Governments and Indigenous organizations agreed that the draft "United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples" as adopted by the Sub-Commission constituted a sound basis for discussions to come.'[12]

Scope and definition

At the first session of the CHR Working Group, numerous, in particular Asian, delegations pressed the desirability of defining the term `Indigenous' as a threshold issue. In the view of China, a precise definition was `necessary and imperative' and `the question of indigenous peoples ... the product of European countries' pursuit of colonial policies in other parts of the world'. In their view, properly defined, Indigenous peoples do not exist in Asia generally or China in particular. According to Malaysia, Indigenous peoples do not exist in countries in which the original inhabitants were not put on reservations, but `live in harmony' in one society. India explained that the declaration was never intended to cover situations `where the entire population of a country can be said to be indigenous', rather those where `the original inhabitants were overrun by settlers from overseas dispossessed and reduced to marginal groups in their own lands.' Bangladesh stated that in Asia, `tribal' populations are no more `indigenous' than their non-tribal neighbours. The representative of Bangladesh suggested that the declaration should focus on the `unique case of injustice' in the Americas and Oceania, where the Indigenous inhabitants were subjected to the `alien values of an alien culture, dispossession and near extermination' and `have not benefited from the process of decolonisation.'

A number of Latin American and European States, including Brazil, Mexico, Norway, Ukraine and the USA suggested that defining the term `Indigenous' might be useful as a way of distinguishing Indigenous peoples from minorities.[13] Other State delegations, including Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, France and Aotearoa/New Zealand, rejected the need to agree on a definition, at least at such an early stage of deliberations. A number suggested that adequate guidance could be found in the definition proposed by Special Rapporteur Martinez Cobo or employed in the International Labour Organisation Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169) (Australia, Brazil, Denmark--on behalf of the five Nordic countries--Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Switzerland).

The debate soon resulted in a stalemate. Bangladesh, recognising that other delegations were keen to begin discussion of the substantive provisions of the declaration, hoped that parallel work on definition might `begin in earnest'. The representative referred to a `special bond' with Indigenous peoples arising from colonialism, and stressed the importance of distinguishing between Indigenous peoples who have gained independence and those who continue to be dominated by alien societies. He suggested that, unless such a distinction is made, the international community would be confronted by a `proliferation of pretenders' to Indigenous status.

The second session of the CHR Working Group saw little debate on definition. Bangladesh, for example, took the floor for the first time on the penultimate afternoon of the session in order to respond to an intervention by the Secretariat of the International Labour Organisation. Almost as an aside, the delegation made the following remarks on definition:

`On the question of focus, we consider it important that this declaration clearly set "indigenous" issues apart from the question of minorities, or intra-cultural socio-economic exclusions, and other inequities of the nation state--issues which are no doubt important, but which demand to be considered on their own right, and not allowed to clutter the international perspective on the indigenous issue'.
China, in a similar vein, stated in its second intervention that the declaration `should not be diluted if it is to give effective protection to indigenous people', and offered the following definition of Indigenous people:

`(i) the original people inhabiting in certain countries or geographical regions and their descendants when these countries and regions have been colonized, conquered, occupied and ruled by colonial settlers from other countries, and these peoples retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions;
(ii) people inhabiting exclusively in certain geographical regions with unique style of living, and thus regarded as indigenous by other inhabitants and governments of the countries in which they live, and they identify themselves as indigenous.'[14]
Japan, also in its second intervention, suggested that a definition should be included in the declaration and that the definition of Martinez Cobo and that employed in ILO Convention No. 169 might be used.[15] Malaysia took the floor numerous times in relation to particular groupings of articles, without referring to definitional issues.

Indigenous access and participation

Since the first session of the WGIP in 1982, flexible and innovative rules of procedure have meant that Indigenous peoples' representatives enjoy unrestricted access to its meetings and that its processes enjoy an exceptional level of legitimacy amongst Indigenous representatives. Working groups at the level of the CHR, by contrast, do not permit participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), unless these have obtained consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). At present, only twelve Indigenous organisations have acquired consultative status, amongst these ATSIC and NAILSS. At the level of the CHR, participation of NGOs is largely restricted to statements in formal debates. Even properly accredited NGOs have generally been precluded from submitting formal drafting proposals at drafting sessions, where decisions are taken by a consensus of participating governments.[16]

With the decision of the CHR to submit the declaration to a new working group, it became necessary to consider issues of Indigenous access and participation. As the Chairperson of the WGIP, Professor Erica-Irene Daes, commented in Sydney in July 1995:

`[T]he present text reflects an extraordinary, liberal, transparent and democratic procedure that encouraged and unified Indigenous input ... The real task of the Commission on Human Rights is to guarantee the greatest possible degree of Indigenous participation in the further consideration and approval of the draft declaration.'[17]
In an annex to resolution 1995/32, the CHR adopted a special procedure for authorising the participation in the open-ended working group of organisations of Indigenous peoples without ECOSOC consultative status. In accordance with this procedure, Indigenous organisations apply to the Coordinator of the International Decade, providing information about their aims and purposes, programmes and activities, and membership. The Coordinator consults with the governments concerned, and forwards applications and relevant information to ECOSOC's Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations for its decision.

The subtext of resolution 1995/32 is that governments have the power to veto the participation of particular Indigenous groups in the further consideration of the draft declaration. The ECOSOC committee consists of nineteen UN Member States; its decisions are accordingly political. Moreover, the committee meets ordinarily only once every second year. Special provision has been made to convene irregular meetings for processing applications for accreditation to participate in the CWorking Group.

pro tem, representing the Secretariat, declined to give the floor to Indigenous NGOs to make nominations for Chairperson. Privately, governments had already agreed upon Peruvian Ambassador Jose Urrutia. However, once Urrutia took the chair the floor was given to Indigenous participants to make proposals with respect to the session's agenda and organisation of work. During the course of the session, Indigenous representatives and governments were given the same opportunities to participate in the debate.

The real test of Indigenous peoples' standing will come if and when the process of drafting begins in earnest. At that point, the Chairperson will have to decide whether the support of Indigenous NGOs for a proposal is necessary in order for there to be consensus.[18] At the first session, it was decided to defer the process of drafting as such, and instead to review the text part by part in order to identify where there was general consensus and which articles would require greater deliberation.

At the second session, questions relating to Indigenous participation became critical. On Monday 21 October, the Chairperson presented an agenda which anticipated discussion of particular groupings of articles. A statement on behalf of the Indigenous caucus called for the immediate adoption of the declaration `without change, amendment or deletion.'[19] Concerned that the `article grouping ... would have lead to possible amendments'[20] and `future dismemberment of the Draft Declaration,'[21] the Indigenous caucus recommended that there first be a general debate on the fundamental issues and concepts of the draft declaration.[22] When the Chairperson disregarded the proposal for a reordering of the agenda, the Indigenous caucus withdrew from the meeting, stating:

`On Monday, October 21st, 1996 at the opening session of the Intersessional working group Indigenous Peoples were presented with a finalized agenda which had not been consented to by all states and Indigenous Peoples. It was determined at the first Open ended inter-sessional working group in 1995 that decisions would be based on consensus. This did not occur during the discussion on the program of action ... Indigenous Peoples considered this blatant disregard to be a serious violation of the agreed process of the principle of full participation and the general goodwill and spirit of cooperation [upon] which any success in this difficult process will depend ... [W]e as Indigenous peoples found ourselves participating in an unequal and undemocratic process. This is unacceptable.'[23]
On 22 October, a Joint Statement by the Indigenous Caucus urged plenary consensus on a change of the internal rules of procedure guiding the working group, to provide for the equal and full participation of Indigenous peoples in its deliberations:

`In this context participation should be understood not merely as our ability to make statements or interventions, but must also include our full participation as partners in the decision-making process ... [T]he Inter-Sessional Working Group's final report to the Commission on Human Rights must formally request the amendment of resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples and Nations in the Inter-Sessional Working Group.'[24]

On 25 October, it was stated on behalf of Indigenous delegations returning to the plenary that their return `could not be construed as Indigenous consent to or acceptance of the current rules of procedure governing this process':

`There remains a consensus that the rules are flawed and violate the spirit of cooperation and consensus that should guide this process ... Indigenous peoples hold a distinct place in the human family. Indigenous Peoples are different with the right to be different and to be respected as such. In this regard there is a legitimate ground for the specific request to change the rules to accommodate the distinct status and rights of Indigenous Peoples.'[25]
Upon resumption of the meeting, all participants agreed to an amendment to the organisation of work to first hold a general debate on the fundamental issues and concepts of the draft declaration. Hereafter, participants would comment on operative paragraphs without, however, undertaking a drafting exercise.[26] On 28 October 1996, the plenary meeting was adjourned early to allow an informal meeting of Indigenous and some State representatives to discuss the participation of Indigenous peoples in the deliberations of the working group. Statements by Indigenous representatives emphasized the need for `consensual outcomes' and a `consensual approach' to future working methods.

During the course of the second session, there was extensive informal dialogue concerning possibilities for flexible, inclusive procedures, including Indigenous involvement in the consensus aspects of the working group's work. Much of this discussion referred to possibilities for particular `modalities of participation' for duly accredited Indigenous representatives. `Other modalities of participation' are anticipated in paragraph 35 of ECOSOC resolution 1296,[27] governing attendance at meetings of ECOSOC commissions (including the CHR) by organisations in consultative status with ECOSOC.

On 30 October, Indigenous and State representatives met informally to discuss methods of work. Chairperson of that meeting, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson, later described the meeting `as a first step towards the development of flexible, frank and often informal methods of work'.[28] The painstaking discussion of working methods was continued in an informal meeting on 1 November, attended by around sixty Indigenous and State representatives and again chaired by Mick Dodson.

On the afternoon of 1 November, at the final plenary meeting, Indigenous delegates proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph in the report of the second session:

`Following extensive consultations, participants agreed by consensus that the matter of full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in the open-ended inter-sessional working group ... must be ensured. [T]his Working Group respectfully requests that the Commission on Human Rights ... approve of and establish a series of technical meetings to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous in this Working Group, in the context of elaborating upon other modalities of participation.'[29]
As alternative wording, the Australian Government delegation proposed:

`Many delegations felt it was essential that steps be taken to promote effective participation of organisations of Indigenous peoples and consultation before the next session of the Working Group in order to facilitate the work of the Working Group and the clarification and elaboration of the text of the draft Declaration. Accordingly, the Working Group recommended that the Commission on Human Rights takes this into account in the action it takes on this report.'[30]
After tense last-minute negotiations to overcome the objections of the Government of Brazil, the following wording was agreed upon:

`Many delegations felt it was important that steps be taken to consult with Indigenous peoples' organisations to promote effective participation of organisations of Indigenous peoples and consultation. The Working Group recommended that the Commission on Human Rights takes this into account in the action it takes on this report.'[31]

Prospects
The tasks facing the Working Group are formidable. Whether State delegations will eventually accept consensual working methods, extending to all aspects of work including proposed textual amendments, is far from certain. Whether the Indigenous caucus will continue to maintain that any change in the WGIP's text will constitute a dismemberment of the declaration and a dilution of Indigenous rights is also unclear. How State delegations will respond to a continuing refusal of Indigenous participants to countenance any textual amendments remains to be seen.

Given the history of relationships between Indigenous peoples and nations, and States, building new partnerships based upon understanding, mutual respect and the recognition of inherent Indigenous rights will require considerable patience. In the words of Mick Dodson: `Time is needed to engage in further dialogue and to earn one another's trust.'[32] It remains to be seen whether the pace which will be necessary to continue a general dialogue on the `fundamental issues and concepts of the declaration in order to gain greater understanding and full agreement about these fundamental principles'[33] will be acceptable to States eager `to move forward and make progress'. These include States such as Australia and Canada, the primary initiators of UN resolutions on Indigenous issues in the past. In this connection, at the working group's first session Bill Barker stated on behalf of the Australian Government delegation that the eventual implementation of the declaration would depend on governments' full participation in the drafting process.[34] During the second session, the silence of many State delegations on a majority of provisions was conspicuous, including a number who had voiced strong objections during the first session.

It also remains to be seen how the CHR will respond to developments in its working group. It appears likely that Indigenous representatives will continue the push for reforms in working methods at the level of the CHR itself. How will the CHR, ECOSOC and eventually perhaps the General Assembly respond to a concerted push for procedural reforms?

The second session of the CHR Working Group was plagued with tension and difficulties which resulted in the departure of a number of Indigenous delegations, including from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Responding to the withdrawal of Indigenous delegations, Mick Dodson, on behalf of Central Land Council, Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, stated:

`In solemnly withdrawing from this Working Group, they are exercising their right to self-determination. We therefore respect their decision. Whilst we are profoundly troubled by the interruption of dialogue between representatives of Indigenous nations and peoples and Member States here this week, we have not yet lost faith in the capacity of this Working Group, in time, to arrive at an understanding of the aspirations and entitlements of Indigenous nations and peoples.

`We believe that in the process of adopting a UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples time is on the side of Indigenous peoples. We continue to believe that through perseverance with this process, it will be possible to achieve consensus on the provisions of the Declaration, as it presently stands.'

The joint statement urged the working group to respond positively to the request to negotiate a change of modalities of participation and methods of work to accommodate the distinct status and rights of Indigenous peoples and to secure full and equal Indigenous participation:
`Without such participation, it will be impossible to secure the understanding and consensus which will be necessary if the Declaration is ever to be proclaimed by the General Assembly and make any difference in the lives of Indigenous peoples.'
Whilst the resolution of the debate on modalities of participation is far from certain, the second session nonetheless saw a number of positive outcomes. Numerous State delegations, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Fiji, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden, emphasised the fundamental importance of the participation of Indigenous peoples. A number of States asserted that they will not support a declaration which does not enjoy very broad support amongst Indigenous peoples. There was wide acceptance of the need for more constructive and cooperative approaches to work. There was also recognition of the importance of ongoing, informal consultations involving a wide range of delegations in order to advance understanding and contribute to the consensus that will be necessary to conclude the work of the CHR inter-sessional working group.

Finally, on the penultimate day of the session, most participants were taken by surprise by a statement by Canada, described by observers as a `diplomatic coup'. Previously implacably opposed to article 3 of the draft declaration and its recognition of the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, as well as to the use of language of Indigenous `peoples', Canada announced that:

`Our goal at this Working Group will be to develop a common understanding, consistent with evolving international law, of how this right is to apply to Indigenous collectivities, and what the content of this right includes. Once achieved, this common understanding will have to be reflected in the wording of article 3 ...

`[T]he Government of Canada accepts a right of self-determination for Indigenous peoples which respects the political, constitutional and territorial integrity of democratic states. In that context, exercise of the right involves negotiations between states and the various Indigenous peoples within these states to determine the political status of the Indigenous peoples involved, and the means of pursuing their economic, social and cultural development.'

Whilst not agreeing with all of Canada's comments, the Representative of Brazil nonetheless felt that the statement was `very helpful for a better understanding of the issues.'[35] Also responding to Canada's announcement, the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development stated:
`Today marks a very significant day ... We have always stated that there is a need to recognize our right to self-determination as peoples and I note from this intervention that they are now using the term "Indigenous Peoples." It should be an encouragement to those states, like the United States, who have had difficulty with the term "Indigenous Peoples" to also take a similar step forward in this long and difficult process.'
The representative of the Indian Law Resource Center, Dalee Sambo, referred to the importance of Canada's statement, describing it as `evidence to the usefulness, and [a] product of, years of dialogue and lobbying by Indigenous peoples and first nations.' Emphasising the positive contributions made by Canada and other governments, Dalee Sambo noted that the Canadian statement shows that `a constructive and meaningful dialogue can affect such changes.' The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of ATSIC and NAILSS, stated:
`We are enormously heartened by the statement of the Government delegation of Canada ... on article 3. It is testimony to what is possible in building understanding and respect for these concepts. We urge other States who feel some discomfort with the language of article 3 to heed the approach taken by Canada in reviewing its previous position on this provision. Their statement confirms our faith in the value and importance of this process.'[36]
The decision by one State delegation to reverse a previously held position is not in itself a cause for unbridled optimism. It does, however, affirm the importance of coherent, coordinated and persistent Indigenous advocacy, as well as of at least a handful of States prepared to engage in informal dialogue with Indigenous representatives and to respond flexibly to Indigenous efforts to advance understanding and build consensus. The Canadian experience suggests that Indigenous leverage is a result of numbers and perseverance, both at the United Nations and in national capitals. It suggests the importance of pursuing ongoing, informal consultations with other delegations--State and Indigenous--between sessions in Geneva, as well as of efforts to bring the debate at the UN to the national and community level.


[1] General Assembly resolution 50/157, 21 December 1995.

[2] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of Central Land Council, Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS, and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Friday, 25 October 1996.

[3] ECOSOC resolution 1982/34, 7 May 1982.

[4] UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1985/2, Ann II.

[5] UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1994/2/Add I.

[6] Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its Twelfth Session UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1994/30, para 133.

[7] Sub-Commission resolution 1994/45.

[8] Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32.

[9] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84.

[10] In 1985, the CHR had discarded a draft declaration on the rights and responsibilities of individuals in defending human rights: Draft Body of Principles and Guidelines on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1985/30 & Add 1.

[11] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84, paras 15-16; also R Barsh, `Indigenous Peoples and the UN Commission on Human Rights: A Case of the Immovable Object and the Irresistible Force', (1996) 18 Human Rights Quarterly 782, at 787.

[12] Report of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/84, para 21.

[13] See generally Barsh, 1996, at 791, fn 45.

[14] Draft report on the second session of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/WG 15/CRP 7 (1 November 1996), para 87.

[15] Ibid, para 93.

[16] Barsh, 1996, at 784, fn 9.

[17] E-I Daes, `Equality of Indigenous Peoples under the Auspices of the United Nations--Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples', (1995) 7 St Thomas Law Review 493, at 494.

[18] Barsh, 1996, at 786.

[19] General Comment: Statement from the Caucus of Indigenous Peoples on Monday, October 21, 1996.

[20] Statement of Indigenous Peoples Caucus to the Chairman of the Intersessional open ended working group established to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, 21st of October 1996.

[21] Reasons for the Decision taken at the Indigenous Preparatory Meeting 20th October, 1996.

[22] General Comment: Statement from the Caucus of Indigenous Peoples on Monday, October 21, 1996.

[23] Statement of Indigenous Peoples Caucus to the Chairman of the Intersessional open ended working group established to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, 21st of October, 1996.

[24] Joint Statement by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus--22 October 1996.

[25] Statement by the Indigenous Caucus--October 25, 1996.

[26] Draft report on the second session of the Working Group established in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 UN Doc E/CN 4/1996/WG 15/CRP 7 (1 November 1996), para 25.

[27] As updated in July 1996 by ECOSOC resolution E/1996/31 L25.

[28] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of Central Land Council, Indigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation, NAILSS and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, Friday, 25 October 1996.

[29] From the author's notes.

[30] From the author's notes.

[31] From the author's notes; subject to final editing by the Secretariat.

[32] Statement delivered by Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, on behalf of ATSIC and NAILSS, Thursday, 31 October 1996.

[33] Outline of comments by Dalee Sambo Dorough, Indian Law Resource Center, October 30, 1996.

[34] Statement by Bill Barker on Behalf of the Australian Delegation, 21 November 1995, at 1.

[35] From the author's notes.

[36]


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1997/13.html