Your search

"Weeping Waters is a must read for anyone who wants to be informed about the current debate regarding the Treaty of Waitangi and a constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand. The book features essays from eighteen well-known and respected Maori figures including Professor Margaret Mutu, Bishop Muru Walters, Judge Caren Fox and lawyer Moana Jackson. This is the first book in recent years to offer a Maori opinion on the subject of constitutional change. It shows how Maori views have been ignored by successive governments and the courts and how Maori have attempted to address constitutional issues in the past. The book also provides suggestions for a pathway forward if the Treaty of Waitangi is to be fully acknowledged as the foundation for a constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand."

Dr Nin Tomas wrote a considered and substantial piece entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Māori: The Right to Self-Determination in International Law - From Woe to Go” for the New Zealand Law Review published in 2008.² In her conclusion she notes two ways in which self-determination has been implemented by the state: first, by “greater tolerance and benevolence along a series of principled guidelines”,³ and, second, as a “peoples-centred, enabling principle that allows Indigenous peoples to re-establish their social, economic and political institutions”.⁴ In 2010, New Zealand reversed its position and supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration).5 With this in mind, this short piece revisits the notion of self-determination by examining the differing dynamics of concepts of external and internal self-determination before a short discussion on pluralism and the relationship between tino rangatiratanga and self-determination. In conclusion some thoughts are offered on a potential form of self-determination that could be consistent with the exercise of tino rangatiratanga.

The article discusses the history of the political participation of the Maori people of New Zealand in the 19th century which started with the creation of the Maori seats of Parliament under the Maori Representation Act 1867 (MRA). Topics discussed include the incorporation of MRA into the Electoral Act of 1893, the history of their voting rights, practices and election participation, and the issue of giving fair representation to Maori in the House of Parliament in 1862.

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.

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.

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.

Communities of colour are racialised and oppressed differentially by settler colonial states (Saranillio, 2013), yet the discourse of diversity and inclusion that dominates state interactions with communities of colour tends to conflate marginalised groups as equivalent and interchangeable to the detriment of intergroup relations. An approach to community building that recognises racial difference in general and the irreducibility of indigeneity in particular is needed if racialised communities are to create solidarities for transformative change. We engage Indigenous and settler colonial theories to address these imperatives, while noting the distinct character of these frameworks. In particular, we seek to highlight the specificity of indigeneity in settler colonial contexts, such as Aotearoa New Zealand, and to generate a model for relationship building that is not founded on settler colonial ideologies, by drawing on Indigenous concepts. Through thematic analysis of interviews with Māori community leaders, we explore Māori-–tauiwi (settler) of colour (ToC) relations. The results of our qualitative analysis provide evidence for Māori–ToC relations that are consistent with whanaungatanga (good relationships characterised as family-like, based on similar experiences, and bound in conditional solidarity; see Benton, Frame, and Meredith, 2013). Furthermore, we identify the following four aspects of whakawhanaungatanga (relationship building): positioning, power sharing, dialogue and cultural practice. Thus, we suggest whakawhanaungatanga as a Māori approach to relationship building with the potential to generate Indigenous–settler of colour solidarities towards transformative change.

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.