Your search

Māori customary rights to natural resources are a contentious issue between Māori and the New Zealand government and between Maori and non-Māori. The values and principles inherent in a treaty signed in 1840 between Māori and the British Crown have been undermined by the government’s refusal to allow Māori the right to go to the courts to determine proprietary rights to the foreshore, seabed and fresh water. Discriminatory Crown actions highlight the argument that when an injustice occurs then reparations should be made. The United Nations has chided the New Zealand government for its discriminatory behaviour and failure to provide guaranteed redress but it has had little effect.

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.

"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.

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 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.

This thesis explores the contemporary political rationality and government mechanisms that develop and impact upon educational policy for Maori. In engaging in a critique of political ideology and operational exposition, this thesis examines and discloses the mechanisms and rationalities of government in New Zealand through state policy theory, gender, race and ethnic writings, critical theory and theories of difference. Of significance to this work is the incorporation of Kaupapa Maori theory, which provides a traditional and contemporary insight into Maori views and praxis of emancipation. In realising the central interest and concern of Maori for real and effective intervention to address the crisis of schooling for Maori, analysis in this thesis examines the historical nature of Maori educational policy and critiques the contemporary educational political frameworks of the New Zealand Labour government. Furthermore, this research also examines government official’s perspectives in discussing the primary contemporary political mechanisms and rationalities that operate in controlling and developing educational policy for Maori. It is argued, that although these contemporary policy frameworks, rationalities and mechanisms may appear to be vastly different from historical colonisation and assimilation practices, they are informed by the same underlying structures and are intersected by similar tendencies and movements. In disclosing the perpetuating ethos of state Pakeha dominant interests and the absence of structural and cultural reform from within political educational policy development for Maori, this thesis argues that state initiatives in the new millennium, under the guise of transformation, commitment and hope still remain ineffective and oppressive for Maori.

Democracy manifests itself in a range of ways and is an imperfect, dynamic struggle for collective decision-making. This article discusses the multifaceted processes of deliberative democratic praxis found in traditional Māori society. Central to decision-making in te ao Māori, hui provide formal and informal structures for deliberative democracy, precedent setting, learning, and transformation through consensus making, inclusive debate, and discussion across all levels of society. Rather than coercion and voting, rangatira relied on a complex mix of customary values and accomplished oratory skills to explore issues in family and community meetings and in public assemblies. Decisions made through inclusive deliberative processes practiced in hui established evident reasoning and responsibility for all community members to uphold the reached consensus. This article claims that practicing deliberative democracy as a fundamental way of life, learned through ongoing active and meaningful participation throughout childhood, improves the integrity of democratic decision-making.

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.

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 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.

Arguments for constitutional reform to recognise Rangatiratanga and Tikanga Maori.