Introduction
Apr. 30th, 2007 05:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojWhy anybody would be interested in this, I can't possibly imagine, but here's the working introduction to my paper. It's kinda unbeta'd, so if anybody does take a little stroll through it, I'd be very grateful if you could point out typos, grammar & punctuation errors, logical oopsies, and general muddlement.
Part I: Introduction
Three Reasons to Study the Relationships Between Sovereignty, Indigenous Peoples, and International Law
The study of sovereignty, indigenous peoples, and international law provides a unique opportunity to engage in a process that is intellectually interesting, ethically relevant, and of particular current importance on the global stage.
International law provides a fascinating look at cross-cultural attempts to build bridges between various peoples with very different beliefs, attitudes and ways of looking at the world. Although the international stage has been (and is still) dominated by Eurocentric beliefs and attitudes, the process of bringing in other ways of looking at the world into play provides a glimpse at the difficulties that confront people trying to bridge gaps in understandings and beliefs. By their very nature, concepts of sovereignty are the basis of international relations; most countries, especially European and European-influenced countries, see sovereignty as a basic requirement for being allowed to play on the world stage and be a party to international interactions.
Of course, it is not just sovereignty that influence the interaction between indigenous people and the international community. One illustrative example of the changing definitions and purposes in international agreements can be seen in the 1957 and the 1989 versions of the International Labour Organization's Conventions concerning indigenous peoples in independent countries1. Where the former states integration and assimilation as the guiding purposes of all relations with indigenous peoples (and indeed, carries "Integration" as part of its title), the latter consciously chooses to set aside such ideas in the Preamble, choosing instead to promote ideas such as protection of, and respect for, indigenous rights and cultures:
(Grey text denotes a long direct quote)Considering that the developments which have taken place in international law since 1957, as well as developments in the situation of indigenous and tribal peoples in all regions of the world, have made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on the subject with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards2
It does not, however, speak of sovereignty. It is still built upon the expectation that indigenous peoples, whatever their histories, beliefs, and rights, are to be considered a part of whatever nations they inhabit, as stated in the same document, as they are encouraged to "exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live" (emphasis added).
Considering the changes that have occurred (at least on paper) from assimilationist to (at least nominally) protective of the rights and traditions of indigenous people, it is interesting to speculate as to whether or not the international community will eventually be able to develop a concept of sovereignty for indigenous peoples, and speculate as to what forms this may take.
Intellectual curiosity aside, the study of the relationship between indigenous people and international law is of vital ethical importance, when one considers the conditions in which most of the indigenous people of the world live:
(Gray text denotes a long direct quote) There are an estimated 300 million indigenous peoples living in approximately 70 countries in the world, mainly in developing countries. They have diverse cultures, traditions, and languages, and are among the poorest and most disadvantaged, living as they often do in remote, isolated areas. They are also often marginalized from socioeconomic and political processes that affect their well-being and their lives, and seldom have rights over their lands and their resources.
In addition, current political and environmental conditions around the globe have made the study and protection of indigenous peoples and their way of life and concepts of sovereignty crucial. With growing awareness that Western concepts of political interrelationships among peoples and nations are not conducive to healthy stewardship of the planet, it is useful to look towards other possible concepts of intraspecies and interspecies relationships. The unique relationships between many indigenous peoples and their environments demonstrate patterns of behaviour and beliefs that may be of vital importance. As stated by one author, "Indigenous peoples, and their way of life, are essential to the future of this planet. A successful transition towards a more secure, ecologically conscious, democratic, and rational future depends on the protection of these peoples … the indigenous tradition of maintaining a balance between conservation and development should be at the foundation of every decision affecting world interest.
This paper will begin with a brief review of some definitions of indigeneity, "people"hood, and sovereignty, by both indigenous and non-indigenous persons and organizations, as the study of sovereignty in international law must involve two issues: the definition of who may be considered indigenous, and what powers such groups may wield. These issues are tightly linked, since, as one author states, "if the right to self-determination is not discriminating, but includes unlimited powers for all groups, then the classification of an indigenous group as a self-determination unit will never be accepted by States, and thus by international law.
The paper will then examine examples of the operation of indigenous sovereignty in three different countries (Australia, the United States, and Canada) and compare the national definitions and practices to international standards. Finally, a critique of the relationship between the theory of indigenous sovereignty and the practice will be offered.
Three Reasons to Study the Relationships Between Sovereignty, Indigenous Peoples, and International Law
The study of sovereignty, indigenous peoples, and international law provides a unique opportunity to engage in a process that is intellectually interesting, ethically relevant, and of particular current importance on the global stage.
International law provides a fascinating look at cross-cultural attempts to build bridges between various peoples with very different beliefs, attitudes and ways of looking at the world. Although the international stage has been (and is still) dominated by Eurocentric beliefs and attitudes, the process of bringing in other ways of looking at the world into play provides a glimpse at the difficulties that confront people trying to bridge gaps in understandings and beliefs. By their very nature, concepts of sovereignty are the basis of international relations; most countries, especially European and European-influenced countries, see sovereignty as a basic requirement for being allowed to play on the world stage and be a party to international interactions.
Of course, it is not just sovereignty that influence the interaction between indigenous people and the international community. One illustrative example of the changing definitions and purposes in international agreements can be seen in the 1957 and the 1989 versions of the International Labour Organization's Conventions concerning indigenous peoples in independent countries1. Where the former states integration and assimilation as the guiding purposes of all relations with indigenous peoples (and indeed, carries "Integration" as part of its title), the latter consciously chooses to set aside such ideas in the Preamble, choosing instead to promote ideas such as protection of, and respect for, indigenous rights and cultures:
(Grey text denotes a long direct quote)Considering that the developments which have taken place in international law since 1957, as well as developments in the situation of indigenous and tribal peoples in all regions of the world, have made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on the subject with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards2
It does not, however, speak of sovereignty. It is still built upon the expectation that indigenous peoples, whatever their histories, beliefs, and rights, are to be considered a part of whatever nations they inhabit, as stated in the same document, as they are encouraged to "exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live" (emphasis added).
Considering the changes that have occurred (at least on paper) from assimilationist to (at least nominally) protective of the rights and traditions of indigenous people, it is interesting to speculate as to whether or not the international community will eventually be able to develop a concept of sovereignty for indigenous peoples, and speculate as to what forms this may take.
Intellectual curiosity aside, the study of the relationship between indigenous people and international law is of vital ethical importance, when one considers the conditions in which most of the indigenous people of the world live:
(Gray text denotes a long direct quote) There are an estimated 300 million indigenous peoples living in approximately 70 countries in the world, mainly in developing countries. They have diverse cultures, traditions, and languages, and are among the poorest and most disadvantaged, living as they often do in remote, isolated areas. They are also often marginalized from socioeconomic and political processes that affect their well-being and their lives, and seldom have rights over their lands and their resources.
In addition, current political and environmental conditions around the globe have made the study and protection of indigenous peoples and their way of life and concepts of sovereignty crucial. With growing awareness that Western concepts of political interrelationships among peoples and nations are not conducive to healthy stewardship of the planet, it is useful to look towards other possible concepts of intraspecies and interspecies relationships. The unique relationships between many indigenous peoples and their environments demonstrate patterns of behaviour and beliefs that may be of vital importance. As stated by one author, "Indigenous peoples, and their way of life, are essential to the future of this planet. A successful transition towards a more secure, ecologically conscious, democratic, and rational future depends on the protection of these peoples … the indigenous tradition of maintaining a balance between conservation and development should be at the foundation of every decision affecting world interest.
This paper will begin with a brief review of some definitions of indigeneity, "people"hood, and sovereignty, by both indigenous and non-indigenous persons and organizations, as the study of sovereignty in international law must involve two issues: the definition of who may be considered indigenous, and what powers such groups may wield. These issues are tightly linked, since, as one author states, "if the right to self-determination is not discriminating, but includes unlimited powers for all groups, then the classification of an indigenous group as a self-determination unit will never be accepted by States, and thus by international law.
The paper will then examine examples of the operation of indigenous sovereignty in three different countries (Australia, the United States, and Canada) and compare the national definitions and practices to international standards. Finally, a critique of the relationship between the theory of indigenous sovereignty and the practice will be offered.
