Sustainable development and Indigenous Rights
Speech by Dr William Jonas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the International Sustainability Conference - Academic Forum of Regional Government for Sustainable Development, 17-19 September 2003
I would like to acknowledge the Nyoongar people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land where we meet today.
This paper seeks to discuss the relationship between human rights broadly and Indigenous rights specifically within a sustainable development framework. In doing so, I will provide an overview of human rights standards relevant to Indigenous peoples and their implications for sustainable development approaches. The paper will conclude with a brief discussion of the challenges and opportunities that exist for a sustainable development approach to Indigenous issues within Australia.
Sustainable development is a complex and ever expanding concept incorporating social, cultural, economic, political and environmental issues. It is not unlike a story of explorers lost in the jungle at night, who happen upon a sleeping elephant. One of the explorers discovers an ear and thought he had found a winnowing basket; the other found a tusk and thought it a ploughshare; another found a foot and thought he had discovered a pillar. To some extent discussions about sustainable development are similar. We each have part of the answer but only a collective understanding will disclose the extent of sustainable development. This presentation will seek to describe the part of sustainable development observed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner as it relates to Indigenous rights. It is hoped that this conference will provide the opportunity for a greater collective understanding for all of us attending.
Sustainable development is essentially a political concept. It promotes a strategy for development that seeks to marry environmental protection with economic and social development. Within the dialogue of sustainable development there are two levels; the first level provides the basic tenets of sustainable development. They include - the integration of environmental protection with economic development, futurity, conservation of resources, equity, quality of life and participation. The second level is more contested and addresses how sustainable development may work in practice [1].
Sustainable development however, is not just a political concept. It has evolved within the international socio-legal context and is heavily influenced by international socio-legal norms. These norms developed at the international level through the United Nations and at regional levels in agreements and conventions between nation-states in discrete geographic regions. They include international environmental law, human rights law and international economic law. For the purposes of this paper and as is appropriate to the role of Social Justice Commissioner, this paper will focus on international human rights law.
The relationship between sustainable development and human rights has not been an easy one. On the one hand, a traditional human rights approach focuses on the rights of individuals and groups and does not directly address environmental issues. For example, loss of a specific species may not affect the human rights of any individual or groups. And inconsistencies between human rights and environmental protection may arise, by the limitation of a group's right to property by environmental protection standards. [2] However, growing environmental concerns have led to discussions of a human right to a healthy environment. These discussions are ongoing.
On the other hand, human rights may be directly affected by environmental degradation. Severe environmental pollution could pose serious threats to fundamental human rights[3] , including: an inherent right to life ,[4] freedom from hunger, adequate housing[5] and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical health .[6] Discrimination on the basis of racial or economic status also features in the context of environmental degradation. Research in the United States in the early 1980s revealed that three out of four hazardous waste facilities were located in poor minority communities .[7] Such discriminatory environmental practices have important implications for key human rights standards including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Similar findings have been made throughout the world and have resulted in a global environmental justice movement.
While there are frictions between environmental protection and human rights, the international law system is working towards an interrelatedness and interdependency between human rights and environmental protection .[8] And it seems that as the principles of sustainable development have evolved, an inexorable link between human rights and environmental protection has emerged.
I would like to build my discussion of human rights and sustainable development around the key declarations that have shaped the meaning of the concept. These declarations are important guides within any discussion on the definition of sustainable development as such discussions are frequently contested. These declarations assist by providing a mechanism by which contested meanings can be assessed.
In 1972 the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment or the Stockholm Declaration presented principles for the preservation and improvement of the human environment. Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration states that humanity has the 'fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life' and that we bear 'a solemn responsibility to protect the environment for present and future generations'. [9]
This principle creates a relationship between human rights and the protection of the environment. The human rights to which Principle 1 refers are fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Principle 8 of the Stockholm Declaration also emphasises the importance of economic and social development as a basis for improved quality of life. Such an approach is supported by the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The emphasis of the Stockholm Declaration on human rights in the context of environmental protection shifted slightly in 1982 with the UN General Assembly proclamation of the World Charter for Nature. [10] The Charter emphasized humanity as a part of nature and emphasised the intrinsic value of the natural environment, independent of its value to humanity. The proclamation acknowledged the over exploitation of the natural environment leads to conflict and the collapse of the social, economic and political framework of civilization. It recommended over exploitation be prevented by appropriate measures to protect the natural environment and promote international co-operation. [11]
From 1983 to 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development was commissioned by the UN to develop strategies aimed at balancing development and environmental protection. This period was marked by socio-environmental disasters; the African famines, pesticide leaks in Bhopal, India and the Chernobyl disaster in the USSR. Of note, this period was also marked by a retreat from social concerns, as growing scientific data on global warming, ozone depletion and the desertification of agricultural land began to dominate environmental discussions. [12]
In 1987 the Commission released its report and concluded that the ongoing destruction of eco-systems was an implicit threat to world security that would result in resource shortages and continued environmental degradation. Further to this, the Commission's report stated that 'poverty is a major cause and effect of environmental problems and, is it therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality' .[13]
In response to these findings the Commission proposed a new development strategy. This strategy was one of 'sustainable development' and described as development which 'meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' .[14] This approach was a watershed in sustainable development thinking. While the concepts of the Report were not without precedent, the articulation of the meaning of sustainable development within the Report continues to be the cornerstone of sustainable development.
Significantly, the World Commission's report is largely silent on the role of human rights within a strategy for sustainable development. And while the Report identifies inequality and poverty as both a cause and effect of environmental degradation, it fails to identify a link between overcoming poverty and inequality with the realization of rights.
In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development was held in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio Conference, focused on a 'sustainable development' approach to addressing environmental degradation and development needs. The Conference culminated in the Rio Declaration, reaffirming the Stockholm Declaration and seeking to further develop its key principles. Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration states 'human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature'.
Despite the emphasis of principle 1, the Rio Declaration provides little recognition for the role of human rights within a process of sustainable development. Despite this, key human rights standards are included in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, even though these standards are not referred to as rights. They include an adequate standard of living ,[15] freedom from hunger, health care and education .[16]
Ten years after Rio in 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg. The conference began with sobering statistics:
. today, 80 countries have lower per capita incomes than they did at the time of the Rio conference. Threats are higher than ever to natural resources such as forests, fish, and clean water and air. The richest one-fifth of the population, including wealthy minorities in poor countries consume energy and resources at a rate that providing a comparable lifestyle to the rest of the world's population would require the resources of four planets the size of Earth. [17]
Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan also acknowledged that the results since the Rio Conference have been disappointing - 'in some respects conditions are worse than they were 10 years ago'. [18] It was recognised that the approach to development had been piecemeal, with ongoing threats to the environment through unsustainable consumption and production.
The Johannesburg Declaration reaffirmed the principles of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21[19] and recognised the three interdependent and reinforcing pillars of sustainability - economic development, social development and environmental protection .[20] Yet overwhelmingly, the Johannesburg Conference emphasised the effect of poverty and inequality on sustainable development outcomes. The Conference recognised that among other issues, poverty eradication and economic and social development were overarching objectives and essential requirements for sustainable development.[21]
Consistent with this emphasis the Johannesburg Declaration, identified specific areas for targeted action. They include: access to clean water, sanitation, adequate shelter, energy, health care, food security .[22] These areas are not just entitlements set out in the Johannesburg Declaration they are fundamental human rights. [23]
As mentioned, the Johannesburg Declaration confirmed that sustainable development relies on three interdependent pillars - economic development, social development and environmental protection. However, the most recent World Development Report acknowledges that the social pillar of sustainability is the least well developed .[24] The emphasis and urgency of the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development on the eradication of poverty and of achieving human development, provides an opportunity to address the social strand of sustainable development.
Within this process, it is likely that human rights will begin to be a more significant feature of the sustainable development discourse. Importantly, the Johannesburg Declaration reaffirms commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and international law and recognizes the vital role of the UN in promoting sustainable development. Also an increasing role for human rights is emerging in what is broadly referred to at the international level as a 'rights based approach' to development. International development models emphasize a human rights based approach to development that favours the empowerment and involvement of communities the subject of development strategies. A rights based approach to development also provides a mechanism by which the power relationships that contribute to inequalities can be analysed in relation to the distribution of rights. [25]
Consistent with a broader rights based approach to development, the right to development ensures the role of human rights within a sustainable development framework. This right was established by the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development. And while the right to development has had a colorful and interesting history, it is becoming an important part of the newly emerging international sustainable development law framework. Importantly, the right to development recognizes 'that the human person is the central subject of the development process'. [26] And significantly:
The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized. [27]
The role of human rights within the evolution of the sustainable development discourse has been ambiguous, although recent analysis suggests that a clearer role for human rights is emerging. Despite the ambiguity, Indigenous rights based in the broader human rights systems have consistently been recognised as a touchstone of sustainable development strategies. [28]
The 1987 World Commission's report, 'Our Common Future' examined the effects of development on Indigenous groups. The Commission identified these groups as specifically and profoundly at risk from development. Indigenous groups were seen as specifically at risk from development because for the most part it is Indigenous groups that continue to live in isolated, often resource rich and unexploited natural environments. They are profoundly at risk because development practices that damage or substantially alter the natural environment, also damage or substantially alter the foundations of Indigenous communities. The relationship of Indigenous communities throughout the world to their natural environment is multilayered and deeply embedded. The sustenance, socio-legal structure, religious beliefs and place of residence of Indigenous communities is founded on the natural environment in which these communities live.
The 1987 Report also acknowledged the important influence of Indigenous knowledge and relationship to land on non-Indigenous perspectives of sustainable development. Such observations led the Commission to conclude that the traditional rights of Indigenous groups must be respected in the context of sustainable development. [29] This approach to Indigenous rights was reflected in the Rio Declaration, which states:
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.[30]
More specifically, Agenda 21 states that 'Indigenous people and their communities shall enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination'. [31] Agenda 21 also promotes the effective participation of Indigenous groups within land management practices on their traditional country and within national policy approaches to land and resource management.
The Johannesburg Declaration reaffirmed the vital role of Indigenous peoples in the process of sustainable development.[32] The emphasis of the Johannesburg plan of implementation is the protection and incorporation of indigenous knowledge systems that may contribute to sustainable development processes in land and resource management and development approaches. While this recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems is positive, I would caution against the wrongful appropriation and exploitation of indigenous knowledge systems. Critically, any use of indigenous knowledge systems must not proceed without the prior informed consent of Indigenous communities and without benefit to communities by the use made of their knowledge.
In conjunction with the Johannesburg Conference, the International Indigenous Peoples Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Kimberley, South Africa. The Kimberley Conference was an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to consider the implications and outcomes since Rio of the sustainable development approach. The Kimberley Conference, in its Declaration expressed disappointment at the failure of Agenda 21 commitments to Indigenous peoples, but reaffirmed the rights of Indigenous peoples to self determination, self development and the protection of traditional knowledge systems.
In addition to the sustainable development declarations, international treaty bodies have found a direct link between Indigenous rights and development. I will briefly summarise two of the key decisions.
In a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee by Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Band against Canada, the Committee found that the sale of gas and oil concessions by Canada on the traditional land of the Lubicon was in violation of Article 27. [33] The Committee reasoned that historic inequalities and the recent sale of concessions were threatening the way of life of the Lubicon and were therefore inconsistent with Article 27.
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, protects the culture of minority groups. The UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted this article in relation to Indigenous groups and observed that:
. culture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of life associated with the use of land resources, especially in the case of indigenous peoples. The enjoyment of those rights may require positive legal measures of protection and measures to ensure the effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions which affect them. [34]
In a similar case, the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights heard a complaint brought on behalf of the Yanomani peoples of Brazil[35] . The Yanomani claimed that the construction of a highway; the exploitation of resources on their traditional land and; the resultant damage to their environment and traditional way of life was in violation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. The Commission found in favour of the Yanomani, concluding that the development on their traditional land violated their right to life, liberty and personal security; the right of residence and movement and; the right to preservation of health and well-being.
Direct links can be drawn between Indigenous rights and sustainable development. These links can be made through the declarations and through the findings of international and regional human rights bodies. However, the declarations and complaints discussed above only provide a general description of some Indigenous rights. In an effort to make this picture a little more complete, I will provide a brief overview of Indigenous rights. The purpose of the overview is to draw out the implications for a sustainable development approach in relation to Indigenous communities.
There are four main categories of Indigenous rights. They include protection of culture, equality and non-discrimination, effective participation and self determination. These are not in any specific order.
First, the right to protection of culture, arises from Article 27 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee found that this article was violated by the government of Canada in the Ominayak decision, in that the actions of the government threatened the way of life and culture of the group and were therefore in violation of the right to protection of culture.
Second, human rights standards of equality and non-discrimination, include a specific obligation relevant to Indigenous communities. Equality and non-discrimination in a general human rights context require the elimination of racial discrimination and guarantees the right of everyone to equality before the law. In a recent case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Awas Tingi, the Court found that the right of everyone to use and enjoy their property extended to Indigenous communal ownership of land 'through an evolutionary interpretation of international instruments for the protection of human rights'. The Court continued: 'the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognised and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations' .[36]
International law recognises that Indigenous groups whose characteristics and traditions are unique are entitled to the protection of these characteristics. This may require specific laws to recognise and protect the distinct characteristics of Indigenous groups. The Permanent Court of International Justice has said 'there would be no true equality between a majority and a minority if the latter were deprived of its institutions, and were consequently compelled to renounce. the very essence of its being as a minority.' [37] In recognition of the distinctiveness and diversity of the human family, international law addresses the need for a system of equality that recognises and protects difference.
Third, arising from rights under the ICCPR and ICERD is the principle of effective participation and prior and informed consent. Effective participation in decisions relating to the environment is an important feature of sustainable development. In a human rights context Indigenous groups specifically are entitled to effective participation in decisions which affect them. However, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also stated that 'states should ensure that no decisions relating to the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples are taken without their informed consent' .[38] This approach suggests a further level of participation may apply to Indigenous communities in relation to their rights and interests. Not only do Indigenous communities have the right to effective participation in the broader life of the community but that their prior informed consent is required in decisions that affect their rights and interests. Such consent would apply to the use and development of traditional land.
Fourth, the right of self determination also applies to Indigenous peoples and is a right enshrined in Article 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR. It states:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Much debate and analysis has been applied to the right of self determination and Indigenous groups. However, recent analysis by international law making bodies[39] and international jurists clearly identify self determination as a right of Indigenous peoples. Broadly, self determination can be characterized as a process based, governance structure that incorporates and respects the distinct cultural values of Indigenous groups. Within this, indigenous relationship to land and resources is integral to rights of self determination and as such Indigenous governance structures apply to the management of land and resources.
I should also acknowledge that self determination as it applies to Indigenous peoples is heavily contested. A number of States, including Australia reject the application of self determination to Indigenous peoples. This approach is based on an interpretation of self determination as it applies to states, with concern of Indigenous secessionist movements. This concern is inconsistent with current interpretations of the right of self determination and in particular the application of self determination to Indigenous peoples. The Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, foresees both indigenous self determination[40] and the territorial integrity of states .[41] This approach strongly suggests a view that Indigenous self determination can exist within democratic states without threat to their territorial integrity.
As discussed earlier, sustainable development has consistently recognised the importance of indigenous communities and their rights. On this basis, sustainable development policy approaches relevant to Indigenous communities should include two main features. First, recognition and respect for legal measures aimed at equal protection of Indigenous rights and interests. Such legal measures may include legislation aimed at the recognition of land rights, protection of cultural heritage and protection of indigenous knowledge systems through intellectual property law. In the event that such legislation fails to provide equal protection, a sustainable development approach should incorporate wider measures of protection to address this failure. It is noteworthy that international law standards are not only relevant to nation-states. There is a growing expectation that regional governments, administrative bodies and even corporations have a role in achieving human rights standards.
The second feature of a sustainable development approach relevant to Indigenous communities should be the incorporation of self determination. Critically, self determination is not an outcome, it is a process. This process is aimed at handing control of the economic, social, political and cultural development of Indigenous communities back to Indigenous people. And while this may seem like a monumental task, it begins with respect for and incorporation of traditional decision making processes, the effective participation of Indigenous communities in decisions which affect them and the opportunity to provide or withhold their informed consent for decisions which directly affect their rights and interests.
The aspects of sustainable development discussed in this paper - the part of the elephant observed by the Social Justice Commissioner - provide a compelling argument for adopting a sustainable development approach to Indigenous issues. Clear links can be made between Indigenous rights and interests and the principles and themes of sustainable development. To some extent this paper has not done them justice. In addition, human rights will become increasingly important as the social pillar of sustainability develops.
Finally, I might briefly discuss some of the challenges in an Australian context, for a sustainable development approach to Indigenous issues. Most significant is the limitations of the native title system. While it is true that without native title there would be no national system for the recognition of Indigenous rights and interests - a better than nothing approach is not the way to achieve a just and sustainable community.
In 1993 the Australian parliament enacted the Native Title Act. The Act was in response to the High Court decision in Mabo. This decision overturned the concept of terra nullius in Australia and recognised an Indigenous system of land ownership. The intention of the Native Title Act was 'to ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire' .[42]
In 1998 the original Native Title Act was amended amid much controversy. Indigenous groups did not consent to the amendments which attracted substantial criticism, domestically and at the international level .[43] However, the 1998 amendments remain and High Court decisions in 2002 provided clarification for many issues within the legislation. The result has been disappointing. The native title system imposes a strict process and standard of recognition and allows for a very limited scope of rights. In addition, the native title litigation process is slow, expensive and leaves many practical issues unresolved.
In response to the costs and limitations of the native title litigation process, many Indigenous groups are beginning to focus on agreement making. Agreements can be reached under the native title legislation. And while they allow for the negotiation of better terms the extent of legally recognised rights that can be negotiated is limited. Also analysis of agreements reveals significant inconsistencies across Australia. Some agreements offer less to groups than what they would get through the Courts and provide meager compensation for the loss of rights and interests. While other agreements, extend rights and interests, for example in site protection, and provide for a diverse compensation base. Diverse compensation strategies may include education, training, job creation and facilities directed toward addressing community need.
Agreement making within native title is particularly relevant to a sustainable development approach. These agreements primarily engage with land related development, involving resource companies, conservation or infrastructure agencies. The land and environmental focus of sustainable development makes native title agreements a valuable area of engagement for sustainable development in Australia.
Agreement making practices are also emerging outside the native title negotiation process. These agreements are directed towards service delivery arrangements, land management and community capacity building. And while an agreement making approach is a recent trend, early indications suggest it is a positive way to engage with Indigenous communities and develop effective, agreed outcomes.
Sustainable development provides an important mechanism for equitable and long term agreement making. Critically, the outcomes of good agreements are achieved through the willingness of parties to deliver beneficial results to communities. This is a policy choice. Corporations, regional governments and their agencies are able to make policy choices that deliver agreements and broader policies that provide for the social, cultural and economic development of communities. Such policy choices operationalise a sustainable development approach and do so despite the shortcomings of legislation.
Thank you.
2. D Shelton, 'Environmental Rights' in Alston P., (ed) Peoples' Rights, Oxford University Press 2001
3. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, doc.10 rec.1 (1997)
4. Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'), 999 United Nations Treaty Series 171, Australia joined 1980
5. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('ICESCR'), 993 United Nations Treaty Series 3, Australia joined 1975
6. ICESCR, Article 12
7. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-RCED-83-168, B-211461, June 1, 1983
8. United Nations ('UN') Commission on Sustainable Development, Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Identification of Principles for International Law for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 26-28 September 1995, www.un.org/gopher-data/esc/cn17/1996/backgrnd/law.txt (accessed 21 August 2003)
9. Principle 1 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN document A/CONF.48/14
10. UN General Assembly, World Charter for Nature, resolution 37/7, UN document A/RES/37/7, 28 October 1982
11. World Charter for Nature, preamble
12. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987, page xi
13. Our Common Future, p xi
14. Our Common Future, p 43
15. Principle 5 of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN
document A/CONF.151/26, 12 August 1992, ('Rio Declaration'), endorsed by UN General Assembly on 22 December 1992 (UN document A/RES/47/190, para 2)
16. Chapter 3 of Agenda 21, UN document A/CONF.151/26, 12 August 1992, ('Agenda 21'), endorsed by UN General Assembly on 22 December 1992 (UN document A/RES/47/190, para 2)Chapter 3
17.v B Jones quoted in TW Kheel, 'Sustainability: Rio to Johannesburg, A Very Long Journey in Pursuit of A Still Elusive Goal', in The Earth Times, posted August 11, 2002 at www.earthtimes.org/aug/sustainabilityriotoaug11_02.htm, accessed 10 December 2002.
18. Quoted in TW Kheel
19. World Summit on Sustainable Development, The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, 26 August - 4 September 2002, UN A/Conf.199/L.6/Rev.2, ('Johannesburg Declaration') Principle 8
20. Johannesburg Declaration, principle 5
21.Johannesburg Declaration, principle 11
22.Johannesburg Declaration, principle 18
23.ICESCR, article 11
24.World Bank, Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World, Transforming Institutions Growth and Quality of Life, World Development Report 2003, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC, 2003
25. C Moser & A Norton, To Claim our Rights - livelihood security, human rights and sustainable development, Overseas Development Institute, 2001
26. Preamble to the Declaration on the Right to Development, UN General Assembly resolution 41/128, 4 December 1986.
27. Declaration on the Right to Development, article 1(1)
28. Our Common Future, pp114-116
29. Our Common Future, pp114-116
30. Rio Declaration, Principle 22
31. Agenda 21, Vol. III, Ch. 26 para 26.1
32. Johannesburg Declaration, Principle 25
33. Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Band v Canada, Decision of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/38/167/1984 (1990)
34. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23 - The rights of minorities, (1994) para 7; in Compilation Of General Comments And General Recommendations Adopted By Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN HRI/GEN/1/Rev.5, 26 April 2001, p147
35. Resolution of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Yanomami Indians -v- Brazil, Case No 7615, resolution no 12/85, 5 March 1985 available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/84.85eng/Brazil7615.htm (accessed 15 September 2003)
36. The Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 31 August 2001, available at www.corteidh.or.cr/seriecing/serie_c_ing.doc (accessed 15 January 2003) at [149]
37. Minority Schools in Albania (1935) PCIJ Ser A/B No 64, p 17
38. Para 4(d) of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXIII - Indigenous Peoples, (1997) para's 4-5, in Compilation Of General Comments And General Recommendations Adopted By Human Rights Treaty Bodies, p192
39. UN Human Rights Committee, UN doc A55/44 para's 498-528, 24 July 2000, UN doc CCPR/C/69/L/AUS, 25 April 2000, issue 4
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN doc E/C.12/Q/AUSTRAL/1, 23 May 2000, issue 3
40. Article 3 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, resolution 1994/45, 26 August 1994, UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56
41. Article 45 the Draft Declaration has the effect of qualifying the recognition of Indigenous self determination by making it subject to broader UN provisions, including the Friendly Relations Declaration. Refer to Chapter 2 of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2002, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney 2003
42. Preamble to the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth)
43. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/304/Add.101, 19/04/2000.
