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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The removal of a Māori child in May 2019 led to widespread protest and the launch of four inquiries into the Ministry for Children, plus an urgent inquiry through the Waitangi Tribunal. Tamariki Māori are over-represented in the child welfare system, but the issues are not just about the system itself. The legacy of colonisation continues to have an impact, not just on individual whānau, but also on the loss of tikanga in relation to whānau. It is the tikanga of whānau that many protesters seek to protect. Furthermore, advocates for reform disagree on the extent to which partnership and biculturalism should be prioritised, or whether self-determination should be a minimum prerequisite for change. Understanding this difference of opinion is important because it affects our view of the child welfare system itself. This article explores these issues within the current context, where child welfare issues are a matter of considerable public debate.

This study examines how global forces are shaping local indigenous cultures with a particular focus on the relationship between global capitalism, new media technologies, and transnational advertising. Concentrating on Mäori culture and identity in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the authors examine a contemporary political debate related to indigenous culture and intellectual property rights. Specifically, the study explores the politics of identity associated with global sports company Adidas and its use of the traditional New Zealand All Blacks haka as part of a global advertising campaign. A key feature of the analysis is the controversy surrounding a lawsuit filed by a Mäori tribe claiming compensation for the commercial use of its culture. Overall, the study highlights the problem of maintaining and protecting cultural spaces where indigenous identities can be constructed and affirmed.

This paper theorizes how knowledge of indigenous tribal epistemologies was made ‘knowable’ through Enlightenment rationalism in an early colonial context. Specifically, the paper determines how and what knowledge of Mäori tribal physical activities was interpreted and authenticated through early travellers' tales and missionaries’ accounts in New Zealand. The central thesis argues that what was established as authentic and truthful aligned with Enlightenment rationalism, while those Mäori physical practices incomprehensible to Western understandings were deemed inauthentic and, consequently, were obscured and/or discarded. Throughout, the article theorizes the translation of knowledge into meaningful Western discourses and how these translations came to be crystallized in the colonial imagination.

Introduction. Although opportunities exist for positive experiences in research, Māori in New Zealand, like other indigenous people colonised by Europeans in the nineteenth century, have also been subject to research and associated policies that have had long-lasting negative consequences. Researchers have subsequently been challenged by Māori to conduct research that is acceptable, accountable and relevant. Much of this debate has taken place within the framework of the Treaty of Waitangi, a treaty of cession signed between Māori and British Crown representatives in 1840. Nowadays, health and health research statutes exist that require researchers to respond to the ‘principles’ of the Treaty. Few practical examples of how health researchers have undertaken this have been published. Aims. We examine how, in developing a national study of injury outcomes, we responded to the Treaty. Our study, the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, aims to quantitatively identify predictors of disability following injury and to qualitatively explore experiences and perceptions of injury outcomes. Discussion. Responses to the Treaty included: consultation with Māori groups, translation of the questionnaire into te reo Māori, appointment of interviewers fluent in te reo Māori, sufficient numbers of Māori participants to allow Māori-specific analyses and the inclusion of a Māori-specific qualitative component. While this article is located within the New Zealand context, we believe it will resonate with, and be of relevance to, health researchers in other former settler societies. We do not contend this project represents an ‘ideal’ model for undertaking population-based research. Instead, we hope that by describing our efforts at responding to the Treaty, we can prompt wider debate of the complex realities of the research environment, one which is scientifically, ethically and culturally located.

This article asserts that elite indigenous tribal masculinity is a particular type of masculinity that has developed since colonisation, in part at least, mimicking dominant forms of invader/settler masculinity. While most commentators have outlined that the dominant forms of invader/settler masculinities were held to be inversely related to the mind of indigenous men, the productive nature of power imposed a different set of rules that challenged this dialectic so that aspects of invader/settler masculinity were necessarily imbibed into burgeoning post-contact indigenous masculine leaders. This masculinity has since been allocated disciplinary and authoritative power through notions of tradition and authenticity. Further, indigenous masculinity was often asserted as reflecting the collective will for liberation; in reality, elite indigenous masculinities have habitually served to exclude alternative forms of indigenous masculinity and indigenous women from leadership roles. Via a post-hegemonic analysis of indigenous masculinity, this article appraises the Janus-faced and ambivalent figure of the indigenous heterosexual patriarch; both oppressor and oppressed. The dialectics between hetero-patriarchal masculinity and feminism, and colonised/coloniser become complicated, as indigenous masculinities are both imbibed with privilege and denied it; both performing colonial hetero-patriarchy and resistant to it.

Māori in Aotearoa have higher incidence, prevalence and mortality from chronic disease. The dominant narrative in Aotearoa about the reasons for Māori ill health neglects to acknowledge the history of colonisation and failures of the health system, alongside the holistic view of health taken by Māori focusing on collective, whānau-based outcomes. In this article, we review health interventions for chronic disease that have a kaupapa Māori philosophical basis. Our findings demonstrate that there is no clear process in health service design, delivery, research and funding that values and understands mātauranga Māori. Western knowledge systems are inadequate for collecting and presenting Māori knowledge. Overall, we highlight that the tension between acknowledging that a by Māori, for Māori approach is best, and the difficulty in defining appropriate evidence collection methodology and outcome measures when funders and policy makers continue to require Western-centric interventions is an obstacle to improving Māori health outcomes.