Your search

This paper defends the legitimacy-positive impact of a "contextual-participation approach" to indigenous peoples' participation in international law-making. It argues that indigenous peoples' participation should be substantial where the issue being negotiated at the international level is of considerable interest to indigenous peoples and indigenous peoples have not consented to state representation. The "contextual-participation approach" to indigenous peoples' participation realises the justice in indigenous peoples' claims to remedial efforts to recognise their, mostly lost and historical, sovereignty, and to contemporary and evolving legal, and largely democratic, understandings of self-determination, as expressed, for example, in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the same time, it balances indigenous peoples' self-determination entitlements to full participation in international law making, as unjustifiably excluded sovereigns, with contemporary political realities.

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.

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.

Standing back, the greatest influence of Indigenous Peoples on international law is our contribution to a pragmatically-driven yet conscious reframing of its foundations. Partly as a result of our participation in international law, it is changing its nineteenth and twentieth century state-centric, colonial, and positivist character to a more informal, flexible, and partially decolonizing system of law. In this way, Indigenous Peoples are crafting a legal system that achieves the “sweet-spot.” It has sufficient “hard-law” quality to restrain the self-interested instincts of powerful states—much needed by Indigenous Peoples seeking to realize their claims against states—and systemic inclusion and justice.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s finding that the New Zealand Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 discriminates against Māori reminds us of the relevance of developments in international law on indigenous peoples’ rights. This article pinpoints the content of those developments and their potential impact domestically. Four conclusions are drawn: indigenous peoples’ land rights are binding on New Zealand via international human rights treaties and, to some degree, under customary international law; international human rights jurisprudence increasingly interprets individual human rights to protect indigenous peoples’ rights; international law relating to indigenous peoples may be applied by New Zealand courts; and New Zealand policy currently falls short of international law on indigenous peoples’ rights.

Discusses the New Zealand position on the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Arguments for constitutional reform to recognise Rangatiratanga and Tikanga Maori.

Aotearoa/New Zealand is not known for egregious breaches of indigenous peoples’ rights. Nonetheless, New Zealand’s legal system is ineffective at implementing international and domestic laws that protect the rights of Maori. This has been seen most starkly in the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004, which had the effect of extinguishing Maori aboriginal title to the foreshore and seabed areas and was passed despite almost universal Maori opposition.

In this paper I argue that Maori should cite and rely on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their legal and political claims as this process can lead to the internalisation of these norms even when states reject them. The paper draws heavily on the case study of the use of the Declaration in a Waitangi Tribunal claim relating to Maori self-determination.

In this situation report I highlight how Te Tiriti o Waitangi is relevant to state and Mäori regulation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting also that it was somewhat ignored by Aotearoa New Zealand’s state institutions during the country’s initial response. Focusing on the te reo text of Te Tiriti as the constitutionally and legally primary text of the Treaty of Waitangi, I argue, first, that Te Tiriti requires joint Mäori and state regulation over the territories and peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, including with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, Te Tiriti requires state government to regulate equitably and, third, it requires state government not to interfere unreasonably with taonga Mäori and our culture. The government needs to do more in its COVID-19 regulatory response to comply with Te Tiriti, and therefore to act constitutionally and with legitimacy.

In 2010 Indigenous peoples' rights continued to feature in discussions in a variety of international fora. Indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources (GR) were discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) and within the World Trade Office (WTO). The United Nations (UN) General Assembly's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Peoples' Declaration) featured in debate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the UN General Assembly's Third Committee; the work of the UN mechanisms with a specific mandate concerning Indigenous peoples; and, in a landmark ruling of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (African Commission), was adopted by the African Union. International human rights monitoring bodies also advanced their jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

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.

Describes, from the perspective of the advocates for Maori claimants, the substance of submissions to and process followed by the United Nations committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in determining that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 discriminates against Maori.

In 1840, English officials on behalf of the British crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi—also known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi—with the Indigenous Māori population, affirming Māori sovereignty and guaranteeing their collective rights to the country’s land and resources. Since the 1700s, English settlers had been arriving in Aotearoa (the Māori name for New Zealand) to capitalize on the seal and whale trade. As the number of settlers increased, reports flowed back to Britain of general lawlessness and dubious private land deals, and the crown was forced to consider how best to control its citizens. A treaty with the Māori, officials decided, was the way to do so. The agreement, which established the basis for the relationship between the Māori and the British, is commonly cited as a shining example of how a treaty can recognize and protect Indigenous peoples’ rights by curtailing the reach of the state. But does te Tiriti live up to its sterling reputation? The answer, of course, is complicated.

"In this era of indigenous peoples' rights recognition, states around the globe are faced with reconciling the pre-existing, inherent rights of indigenous peoples with those held and asserted by the state. This fact was brought into sharp focus in New Zealand by the Court of Appeal decision of Ngati Apa." "This collection of essays does not aim to be an exhaustive treatment of the legal issues raised by Ngati Apa and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (the FSA). It does, however, address many of the most salient."--BOOK JACKET.

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.