Your search

In 2009 international legal negotiations of particular relevance to Indigenous peoples continued under the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD); and the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). As in previous years, international human rights monitoring bodies developed jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples, contributing to the development of customary international law in the field. New Zealand was the subject of the UN Human Rights Council's (HRC) universal periodic review (UPR) process for the first time in 2009. The HRC focused on Maori and their rights during the UPR with calls for New Zealand to support the UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Peoples' Declaration) and to consider constitutional entrenchment of international human rights instruments and the Treaty of Waitangi.New Zealand's reluctance to recognise Indigenous peoples' rights persisted in 2009. New Zealand did not endorse the Indigenous Peoples' Declaration and Indigenous peoples' rights did not feature prominently in New Zealand's statements in international fora.

The developments that have taken place in New Zealand in relation to Indigenous Peoples rights under International law are discussed. Details of different committees formed and laws enacted to ensure and protect the same are highlighted.

2007 was a significant year for Indigenous peoples and international law. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples), after more than 20 years of negotiations, and the Human Rights Council established the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the EMRIP). Further, the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) continued its work on traditional knowledge, as did the working groups associated with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Indigenous issues were considered in institutions such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and, of course, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. New Zealand was also the subject of review by the UN Committees on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) and the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) on its compliance with its human rights obligations, some of which raised issues involving Maori. This review details New Zealand's state practice in these institutions.

This note reviews New Zealand's state practice regarding Indigenous peoples' rights under international law in 2015 and traces key international developments concerning those rights. In 2015 New Zealand demonstrated support for efforts to improve Indigenous participation in the United Nations (UN) and extend the mandate of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) to advance implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). But it indicated that - domestically - the UNDRIP would be implemented within existing legal and constitutional arrangements. There were several noteworthy developments regarding Indigenous peoples' rights during the year. Indigenous peoples and their rights received limited reference in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development agreed by the UN General Assembly (GA) and in the Paris Agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nationally, draft bills proposing significant changes to the law governing Māori land and te reo Maori (the Maori language) were released, which will contribute to growing jurisprudence in these areas. In November the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was made public, which includes an exception clause on the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty). The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) commented on the human rights situation of Māori. The GA, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and others also devoted attention to Indigenous peoples' rights in the course of their work.

This article is a response to the recent surge of interest over extractive industry in New Zealand and the opposition to this by many iwi. The New Zealand government has in recent years made offshore exploration and production a high priority. By the extractive industry, we mean the people, companies, and activities involved in removing oil and gas, metals, coal, stone and other useful resources from the ground.

In 2021, Aotearoa New Zealand's Foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, sketched out a kaupapa Māori (collective Māori vision) foreign policy for New Zealand based on four tikanga Māori (Māori customary practices and behaviours): manaakitanga (hospitality), whanaungatanga (connectedness), mahi tahi and kotahitanga (unity through collaboration), and kaitiakitanga (guardianship and the protection of intergenerational wellbeing). This article makes a novel contribution to the global International Relations body of literature by questioning to what extent New Zealand's ‘Māori foreign policy’ has been applied to its relationship with China. Through assessing the communications of Mahuta and other officials, it is found that New Zealand is utilizing a kaupapa Māori framework towards China: ‘the taniwha and the dragon’. It is argued that New Zealand is attempting to consolidate the maturity of the Sino-New Zealand relationship, as well as differentiate itself from the other Anglosphere countries that have recently pushed back on China. In doing so, not only is New Zealand something of an outlier, it is demonstrating how eschewing a western-centric understanding of foreign policy for a more relational view based on indigenous knowledge and perspectives (in this case, from te ao Māori: the Māori worldview) can be applied at a time of increasing great power competition.

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination.

In February 1840, Maori co-signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the British Crown. Partnership, protection, and participation are the fundamental principles provided in the Treaty. In April 2010, the New Zealand government endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These two instruments provide indigenous peoples with the right to participate fully in decision-making that will affect their legal, social, economic, cultural, and political rights. Having endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the New Zealand government is morally obliged to comply with the intent of the Declaration. The focus of this chapter is on the right of Maori to participate and be represented on the governing councils of local government. It will be demonstrated that the refusal by the New Zealand government in 2010 to provide dedicated Maori wards on the Auckland Council is contrary to the intent of the Declaration. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi require the government to act with integrity toward the indigenous people of New Zealand. It will be argued that the failure of local government to utilize electoral options that will enhance Maori representation in local government breach obligations inherent in both the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Restrictions on Indigenous peoples’ contributions to policymaking pervade post-settler societies like Australia, Canada and Aotearoa. Such effects are observed in spite of agreements like Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa and the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Te Tiriti, negotiated between the British Crown and Māori (Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa), may have been entered into honourably by both parties, but the Crown has consistently resisted its implementation. Contemporary colonialism is characterised by the entrenched and on-going displacement of Indigenous people’s authority by settler states, rationalised by race as a determinant of human worth. Impacts include land alienation, unsustainable resource exploitation and marginalising Indigenous voices from opportunities to make policy consistent with Indigenous values and preferred ways of living. Colonialism normalises institutional racism so that public policy outcomes are persistently unjust. This article describes Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA), an original contribution to transforming colonial policy, which retrospectively evaluates whether any specific policy document is consistent with Te Tiriti. Substantial interest in CTA from policymakers, practitioners, and scholars led to the development of the tool as a prospective guide to making policy that is consistent with authoritative interpretations of Te Tiriti, and therefore, more likely effective in producing public policies which eliminate inequities. CTA was initially focused on health policy and built on a series of questions that arise from our interpretations of the text of Te Tiriti, contemporary Tiriti scholarship and jurisprudence, and our observations of the ways in which the method is being used by ourselves and others. Although deeply grounded in Aotearoa, we argue that CTA may be transferable to other colonial contexts, such as the Australian where treaties between First Nations and the state are being contemplated, and Canada which has passed legislation to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This article draws on the politics of indigeneity to distinguish the claims of first occupancy from simple ethnic identity politics, illustrating that relative political marginalization in Australasia is not so much a function of minority status but of indigeneity itself. The politics of indigeneity's aim is to create political space for self-determination and a particular indigenous share in the sovereign authority of the nation-state itself. The Australasian states are compared with Fiji to demonstrate that the significance of historical constraints on political authority transcend the withdrawal of a colonial power and the restoration of collective indigenous majority population status.

This chapter outlines juris-significant, but unorthodox, ways in which international and domestic law, policy and practice influence each other with respect to Indigenous Peoples’ norms. In the authors’ view, such an approach paints a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the legal dialogue that occurs than orthodox and positivistic legal accounts. The approach also illustrates unique and potentially powerful ways that Indigenous Peoples and other non-state actors can better realise Indigenous Peoples’ rights in their territories. The chapter begins by briefly introducing international legal norms relevant to Indigenous Peoples before contrasting formal understandings of the law with new accounts of the influence of legal norms. The final, and primary, section seeks to capture the relationship between international law and domestic state law and policy. It focuses upon international law’s relationship with the courts, legislature and the executive in Aotearoa (New Zealand), although the broader existence of this intersect is signalled.

Discussion on the special theme for the year: “The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past conquests (articles 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)”.

Resistance: An Indigenous Response to Neoliberalism is a collection of papers from Maori academics, activists and leaders on the connection between global practices of neoliberalism and the diverse forms of Maori resistance that aim to destablize them.Aotearoa is one of the world leaders of neoliberalism. Successive New Zealand governments since 1984 have pursued neoliberal policies with a faith, vehemence and confidence in their success that few other governments appear to possess. At a time when 'capital flows across borders as it has never done before, and multinational companies have bigger budgets than many states have ever had', this book encourages people to look more closely at Maori views as integral and inspiring in a globalizing world.

Resistance: An Indigenous Response to Neoliberalism is a collection of papers from Maori academics, activists and leaders on the connection between global practices of neoliberalism and the diverse forms of Maori resistance that aim to destablize them.Aotearoa is one of the world leaders of neoliberalism. Successive New Zealand governments since 1984 have pursued neoliberal policies with a faith, vehemence and confidence in their success that few other governments appear to possess. At a time when 'capital flows across borders as it has never done before, and multinational companies have bigger budgets than many states have ever had', this book encourages people to look more closely at Maori views as integral and inspiring in a globalizing world.

Developed during a time of dramatic global upheavals and transformations, The New Imperial Order is concerned with the political economy of world order and the ontologies of being upon which the emergent global order is predicated. Positioned from a Maori perspective and contextualized within the international political and juridical framework, this book examines the political and juridical ontologies that shaped the development of international law and the world order of nation states. In engaging with these issues across macro and micro levels, the book identifies the nation state and new forms of regionalism as sites for the reshaping of the global politico/economic order and the re-emergence of Empire. Stewart-Harawira also tracks the role of education and the reconstruction of sovereign indigenous nations into dependent populations in the development of world order, and the profound impact of indigenous peoples’ proactive global and local responses in the reshaping of international law. In this work, the problematics of globalization are made visible through the privatization of services, the restructuring and commodification of knowledge and the creation of new categories of the dispossessed. Overarching these issues is a new form of global domination in which the connecting roles of militarism and the economy, and the increase in technologies of surveillance and control have acquired overt significance. In the first chapter of the book, the author identifies ontological and cosmological principles that are shared by many indigenous peoples as key signifiers of an alternative framework for socio/politico/economic order. In the final chapter she draws these principles together within the context of the fragmentation and integration which characterize the globalizing process, and proffers them as central to the revisioning of a transformed global order.

In recent years Maori people have adopted many strategies to protect and advance the well being and visions implicit in the exercise of tino rangatiratanga. Much of that work has been done at home, but an increasing number of Iwi and other Maori organisations are now participating in international affairs that are seen to have some relevance to our lives. They are joining a worldwide movement by Indigenous Peoples to reassert their rights and reclaim their rightful place.