Gerber, Paula --- "Black Rights/White Curriculum: Human Rights Education For Indigenous Peoples" [2004] DeakinLawRw 3; (2004) 9(1) Deakin Law Review 61

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Deakin Law Review

In December 1994 the United Nations (UN) proclaimed both the Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004) and the Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004).[1] Despite the fact that these two initiatives are running in tandem, very few people have drawn any correlation between the two. There is a growing body of academic work relating to human rights education (HRE), and many scholars have published work dealing with indigenous issues, yet scant attention has been paid to HRE for indigenous people.[2] The two subjects have been treated as if they run in parallel lines, with little thought being given to how the two intersect or relate to each other.[3]

This socio-legal research seeks to redress this oversight, at least in part, by answering the question - how appropriate is the international movement for HRE for indigenous people? In other words, do indigenous people require different HRE from that which is intended for the dominant culture? Before answering this question, the paper first considers whether international laws relating to human rights and children’s rights are even relevant to the struggles of indigenous people. It is argued in section II that although human rights norms were articulated by the UN without input from indigenous people, they can nevertheless be gainfully utilised by indigenous people to advance their rights.

Section III explores what HRE actually means; is it anything more than the simple dissemination of information about the UN and human rights treaties? The UN asserts that HRE involves more than the mere sharing of information about human rights, and actually requires the development of values, beliefs and attitudes which encourage people to protect, defend and promote human rights. This paper argues that the UN definitions of HRE were not developed with indigenous people in mind and the result is that they do not suit indigenous circumstances and needs.

The international law that relates to HRE and the international initiatives that relate to indigenous people are analysed in sections IV and V respectively. Numerous provisions in a variety of treaties call for HRE, and while some of them refer to education about tolerance and understanding of indigenous people, none refer to the HRE needs that are unique to indigenous people. On the other hand, the international law instruments that specifically address indigenous issues, fail to mention HRE. This has resulted in laws covering HRE that do not cater to indigenous people, and ‘laws’[4] covering indigenous issues that do not address HRE.

Non-government organisations (NGOs) have been a driving force behind the implementation of HRE,[5] and their work with respect to HRE and indigenous communities is considered in section VI. It is apparent that the limited HRE that is available to indigenous people tends to come from NGOs rather than from states. The conclusion reached is that, not only are there very few HRE programs for indigenous people, but many of the ones that do exist, while well intentioned, are not appropriate for an indigenous audience.

In section VII the suitability of the curricula used to teach HRE to indigenous people, and the manner in which the curricula are delivered, are critically analysed. This paper argues that the limited HRE that is available to indigenous people is inappropriate in that it is not directed to the specific needs of indigenous people who in the majority of instances are still living with the legacy of a colonial regime. It is asserted that in order to have HRE that is suitable for indigenous people, there must first be an understanding of the purpose behind HRE. It is contended that the motivation for HRE for indigenous people is different to the motivation for HRE within the dominant culture. Only when the reasons behind HRE for indigenous people are understood can an appropriate program that addresses these needs be developed.

Not only is the content of HRE curricula for indigenous people inadequate, but the teaching methods employed are also wanting, in that the delivery of HRE reinforces the colonial power imbalance by being culturally insensitive and undemocratic; indigenous students are often the passive recipients of information selected to be bestowed on them by an expert (generally western) teacher.[6]

The paper concludes with an evaluation of the HRE programs being offered to indigenous people and some criticisms of the models, curricula and methodology being employed.

II. RELEVANCE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Before embarking on a detailed analysis of the how international laws relating to HRE and indigenous people interrelate, it is important to briefly consider a fundamental question of whether international laws relating to human rights and children’s rights are even relevant to indigenous people and their needs. The drafting of the major human rights instruments by the UN was done without any input from indigenous people and have been criticised as being Eurocentric.[7] For example, in the context of indigenous women’s rights it has been argued that:

International law cannot provide a coherent and balanced answer [because] in the light of Indigenous peoples’ experience with colonisation, the imposition of norms by a ‘foreign body’ could be counterproductive, and there are significant practical difficulties in an international body applying rights to Indigenous custom.[8]

However, this same author concluded that international law is playing a role in advancing indigenous rights. This is occurring through international human rights laws influencing indigenous customs[9] and through indigenous people having a greater voice within the UN through bodies such as the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. This paper is premised on the view that international human rights laws, although largely developed without the benefit of indigenous ideas and knowledge, can nevertheless be harnessed by indigenous people to further protect and promote their rights.

III. THE WHAT AND WHY OF HRE

As section IV below demonstrates, the UN has devoted much attention to mandating that states implement HRE, but much less attention to what this actually means. It was not until the Decade for Human Rights Education that the UN attempted to define what HRE actually means. For the purposes of the Decade, HRE was defined by the UN as:-

Training, dissemination and information efforts aimed at the building of a universal culture of human rights through the imparting of knowledge and skills and the moulding of attitudes and directed to:

This exposition on HRE is problematic insofar as it relates to indigenous people. It appears to have been drafted with the dominant culture in mind; it talks more about teaching people to respect the rights of others, rather than teaching those whose rights are being violated, how to assert their rights. The primary HRE need of people whose human rights are being abused - be they members of the dominant culture or a minority - is education and skills relating to how they can claim their rights and have them respected.

Further problems lie with the concept expounded in sub-paragraph (c) which talks about ‘tolerance’ in relation to indigenous people. ‘Tolerance’ is defined as “the ability to endure disagreeable circumstances.”[11] The concept of ‘tolerance’ with respect to indigenous people is wholly inadequate and inappropriate. An Indigenous Australian from Orange who participated in a community consultation on racism said "I don't want to be tolerated. You can tolerate a headache. I want to have respect and equality."[12] Thus the language used to define HRE generally is unhelpful when applied to indigenous people.[13]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child[14] has also attempted to define HRE in General Comment No. 1 published on 17 April 2001.[15] This exposition is slightly more useful when it comes to HRE for indigenous people because in addition to discussing education about respecting the rights of others, it also addresses education designed to empower the child to enjoy his/her full range of human rights. General Comment No. 1 does at least seem to contemplate that children of indigenous origin may have different HRE needs to the majority population. This is seen in the following references:-

The above comments can be constructed in a way that endorses the development and implementation of HRE programs specific to indigenous people. For example as a disadvantaged minority, indigenous children are likely to face human rights infringements in their lives; the line of reasoning in paragraphs (a) and (b) can therefore be used to justify the development and teaching of HRE programs that provide indigenous children with the skills and confidence to fight for their human rights.

It is submitted that the UN’s attempts to provide definitions of HRE have not been entirely successful. They have endeavoured to develop a broad characterisation of HRE that is appropriate for everyone, but in the result have adopted a narrative that is unsuitable to the majority of the world’s indigenous people. The elaboration of HRE expounded by the Committee on the Rights of the Child is the preferred one because it at least recognises that for HRE to have any relevance it must be contextual.

HRE must vary according to whether it is being directed at a dominant culture or a repressed minority. To be suitable for indigenous people, a definition of HRE must incorporate the issues discussed in section VII below that is, it should emphasise that HRE should be directed at empowering indigenous people to affirm and assert their human rights. Furthermore, any definition of HRE ought to stress that civil and political rights should not be prioritised over economic, social and cultural rights, and that the term ‘rights’ includes collective rights and the right of self-determination.

IV. DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO HRE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The UN’s commitment to HRE can be traced back to its formative years. One of its first tasks was to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and this is the first international instrument to contain a reference to HRE. The UDHR plays a key role in later UN instruments, with the language in Article 26 (relating to HRE) often being adopted with little or no amendment.

It is important to be aware of the history of HRE in international law, as this not only leads to greater understanding of the theoretical and practical aspects of HRE, but may also act as a pointer towards the future direction of the HRE movement. For this reason the six initiatives which represent the significant international activities regarding HRE are analysed chronologically in this section.[18] This review of HRE developments shows that while there has been some progress with HRE, a number of the initiatives amount to no more than repetition and this does little to advance HRE beyond reinforcement by reiteration. In addition, the language used to mandate HRE privileges the dominant cultural understanding of human rights and silences indigenous pasts and presents.

Figure 1 has been included as a useful way to illustrate international law initiatives relating to HRE and indigenous people. It demonstrates that the developments relating to indigenous people started later than the HRE initiatives, but in the last couple of years indigenous issues have received more attention, suggesting that the time may be right for a push for indigenous HRE to become a priority.

FIGURE 1: HISTORY OF HRE & INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

	HRE Developments in International Law	Indigenous Developments in International Law

1948	UDHR (Article 26)

1957		ILO Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention 107

1960	UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education (Article 5)

1965	International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Art 7)

1966	International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13)



1989	UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 29)	ILO Indigenous and Tribal People Convention 169

1993		Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and International Year of the World’s Indigenous People

1995	UN Decade for Human Rights Education	UN Decade of the World’s Indigenous People

2000		Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

2001		Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People

A. UDHR – Article 26(2)

Article 26(2) is the first evidence of HRE in international documentation and states:

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

The drafting of the UDHR involved a wide variety of NGOs, and it was a NGO that first mooted the idea that education should include education about human rights. A.L. Easterman representing the World Jewish Congress responded to a draft of the UDHR by noting that:

the Article on education provided a technical framework but contained nothing about the spirit governing education which was an essential element. Neglect of this principle in Germany had been the main cause of two catastrophic wars.[19]

This argument was accepted and Article 26 amended accordingly. Thus it can be seen that the beginning of HRE was a direct consequence of the Holocaust and the desire to ensure that such an atrocity could never happen again. The underlying philosophy was to educate those likely to perpetrate human rights abuses about respecting human rights, rather than to educate likely victims about asserting their rights. This thinking has permeated much of the work of the UN and its agencies relating to HRE for the half century since the UDHR was adopted and as is demonstrated below, is not an approach that advantages indigenous people.

B. UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education

The second development in international law relating to HRE came not from the UN itself but from one of its specialised agencies. UNESCO was established in November 1946 and its constitution provides that:

Given this constitutional directive, it is not surprising that UNESCO has been quite active in the field of HRE. It is the international institution vested with the authority to use education to further human rights, and it has been enthusiastic in carrying out its mandate. Unfortunately, although UNESCO has been dedicated to promoting HRE, it has failed to direct any of these initiatives towards indigenous people.

One of UNESCO’s initiatives regarding HRE is seen in Article 5(1)(a) of the Convention Against Discrimination in Education.[21] This provision is identical in every respect to Article 26(2) of the UDHR, and is therefore not repeated here. UNESCO is to be commended for creating the first global treaty requiring HRE, however, the criticisms above about the language of Article 26(2) of the UDHR focussing on education of potential abusers of human rights, rather than education that empowers ‘at risk’ individuals is equally applicable to this instrument.

C. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

The convention relating to racial discrimination is one that the indigenous community regularly relies upon to fight racial discrimination, and indigenous issues are often highlighted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination[22] when commenting on government reports. However, the aspect of Article 7 relating to education has received little attention. It provides that:-

State Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention.[23]

The intention behind Article 7 is similar to that of Article 26(2) of the UDHR and Article 5(1) of the UNESCO Convention discussed above, that is, it is in effect a shield rather than a sword. Thus, while acknowledging that there is a HRE element to Article 7, it is not one that can be used by indigenous people to support their demands for HRE that accords with the requirements set out in section VII below. The HRE contemplated by CERD is proactive anti-discrimination education designed to prevent prejudice and to promote peaceful co-existence with minorities and indigenous people. It is not intended as a tool that indigenous people can rely upon to justify culturally specific HRE. Nevertheless, this repetition of HRE obligations in international conventions and the potential for states’ HRE performance to be monitored by treaty bodies adds to the weight of pressure on states to ensure that they have adequate HRE programs.

D. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

The UDHR, being a declaration rather than a treaty, is not binding in international law,[24] and it was always intended that the rights articulated in the UDHR would be developed into binding international laws by way of a subsequent covenant. As it turns out, no single instrument encompassing all rights in the UDHR could be agreed upon,[25] and the rights were expanded and defined in two separate covenants, being the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and ICESCR. Article 13(1) is the provision intended to give effect to the HRE principles of the UDHR. It provides:-

The State Parties... agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

While this Article is similar to the UDHR provision, it does differ in some significant respects. Of particular relevance to indigenous people is the addition of the words requiring that the education ‘shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society.’ This language extends the focus from education about respecting and protecting rights, to education that empowers individuals to claim their rights. The word ‘enable’ means “to provide with the means or opportunity; to make possible, practical or easy.”[26] The drafting of Article 13(1) suggests that the international community was beginning to recognise that people not only need education about how to respect the human rights of others but also about how to affirm and claim their own rights. It is argued that this provision can be used by indigenous people to insist that their HRE include training not only about rights that are particularly relevant to their circumstances (for example the right of self-determination), but also how to effectively claim these rights so that they can “participate effectively in a free society”.

The ICESCR, unlike the ICCPR does not have a process for individual complaints to be made[27] and as such the means of ensuring compliance are limited. The absence of such procedure places significant constraints on the ability of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR Committee)[28] to develop jurisprudence and, of course, greatly limits the chances that persons, whose rights have been violated, will have their claims heard and obtain redress.

State Parties are required to submit periodic reports to the ESCR Committee, however the guidelines for these reports[29] do not include any questions which states should answer relating to HRE. The reporting requirements for Article 13 set out in the guidelines focus solely on the aspects of the Article that deal with the right to education, and not the content of that education.[30] This failure to include questions regarding HRE in the guidelines does bring into question the commitment of the UN to HRE. State Parties are unlikely to privilege or prioritise the intent of Article 13(1) if the UN does not require any reporting on these activities. This ultimately leaves State Parties free to ignore the HRE obligations in ICESCR.

The other feature of ICESCR which limits the chances of Article 13(1) being fully realised is Article 2(1) which specifies that:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps ... to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means... (emphasis added)

Much debate has taken place as to the exact interpretation and effect of this provision, but the fact remains that it is relied upon by State Parties to justify their failure to implement HRE.

E. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC)

As has already been demonstrated, HRE as a concept was around long before Article 29(1) of CROC came into being in 1989. This provision is however significant because it is the first time that education about human rights has been linked to children’s education. CROC is also significant because it has been embraced by governments more quickly and in greater numbers than any other human rights instrument.[31] Article 29(1) states that:-

(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

In this provision we see a slight change in focus that may be advantageous to indigenous people. It could be argued that sub-paragraph © which talks about education that promotes respect for each child’s “cultural identity, language and values”, covers the priority that indigenous people give to collective rights generally, and self-determination in particular. It is an indirect way of arguing that indigenous children have specific requirements when it comes to HRE, but it is nevertheless a viable interpretation and in the absence of specific provisions addressing HRE for indigenous people, it is a useful argument to have.

Article 29(1) is also noteworthy for its specific reference to “persons of indigenous origin” in sub-paragraph (d). However, this does not relate to the HRE rights of indigenous children, but rather to the very different right of others to be educated about how to live with indigenous people. It cannot be said that Article 29(1) of CROC represents any great step forward in terms of recognition of indigenous people’s specific requirements concerning HRE, but it is nevertheless a step forward.

F. UN Decade for Human Rights Education

The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna culminated in a Declaration and Programme of Action[32] which marked a renewed effort to strengthen and further implement human rights laws. Paragraphs 78-82 of the Declaration and Programme of Action are specifically devoted to HRE and amongst other things recommend that the UN should declare a Decade for HRE. Such a decade was duly proclaimed by the General Assembly, in resolution 49/184 on 23 December 1994. The purpose of the HRE Decade is to draw the attention of the world community to the significance of HRE and to intensify efforts to provide HRE. Unfortunately, for indigenous people, they are once again largely invisible in this resolution. They are mentioned in the preamble when the General Assembly notes that

human rights education contributes to a concept of development consistent with the dignity of women and men of all ages that takes into account the diverse segments of society such as children, indigenous peoples, minorities and disabled persons.

However, when it comes to the operative provisions, there is no mention of indigenous people. This absence is particularly highlighted by paragraph 12 which calls upon various NGOs to increase their involvement with HRE; organisations concerned with women, labour, development and the environment are specifically mentioned, but not indigenous organisations. This invisibility is glaring evidence that HRE for indigenous people has not yet made it into the consciousness of the UN.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was charged with coordinating and implementing the Decade, conducted a mid-term review of the Decade and prepared a report on progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the Decade, including accomplishments, remaining shortcomings and recommendations for action for the five remaining years. Once again there was a noticeable absence of any reference to indigenous people. There was a call for increased efforts for HRE targeted at rural populations, illiterate people, women, vulnerable groups such as people with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, minorities, the elderly and non-state actors such as multinational corporations and trade and financial organisations, but no reference to indigenous people. Until the UN recognises the interrelationship between HRE and indigenous people, we are unlikely to see major advances made in this area.

G. Conclusion Regarding the Work of the UN Relating to HRE

As the above demonstrates there has been significant work done at the international level in an effort to achieve widespread implementation of HRE. However, the language for addressing HRE that has become standard fare in international instruments does not address important concerns of indigenous people. In particular there is a failure to recognise that the HRE requirements of minority indigenous people differ from those of the majority population and therefore need to be separately considered. The rights that are most important to indigenous people (collective rights and the right of self-determination) must form a core part of any indigenous HRE, and how to claim and enforce these rights also needs to be addressed. This is unlikely to happen until indigenous people cease to be invisible in the UN’s HRE initiatives.

One way that these issues could be addressed is by the appointment of a Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Education. Such a person could not only monitor and report on the status of HRE around the globe generally, but also specifically investigate and make recommendations regarding indigenous HRE.

HRE is likely to be further advanced if relevant UN treaty bodies start requiring State Parties to include in their periodic reports details of the HRE taking place in their countries. In countries with indigenous populations, the reports should separately address the HRE initiatives that specifically relate to these communities.

V. DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATING TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

The work of the UN and ILO relating to indigenous issues not only began later than their work on HRE, but has also been extremely slow in making concrete advances. In this section, six specific international initiatives relating to indigenous people are analysed to determine how, if at all, they address HRE. The conclusion reached is that international law has a long way to go before it fully recognises the rights of indigenous people, and even longer before the international community addresses issues relating to HRE for indigenous people.

A. ILO Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention 107 (1957)

This convention gets some credit for being the first international instrument to specifically focus on indigenous people. However, it was drafted without input from the very people who formed the subject matter, and has been severely criticised by indigenous people as paternalistic, based on a policy of integration, and founded on the concept that indigenous people are less advanced than their colonisers.[33]

ILO Convention 107 addressed education in a manner that is viewed with disdain and disbelief less than half a century later. For example Article 24 provided that:-

The imparting of general knowledge and skills that will help children to become integrated into the national community shall be the aim of primary education for the populations concerned.

This is a clear contrast to modern thinking within international institutions which is to promote and protect indigenous culture and tradition, rather than to integrate and assimilate. The closest one gets to HRE in ILO Convention 107 is Article 26 which required governments to:-

adopt measures, appropriate to the social and cultural characteristics of the populations concerned, to make known to them their rights and duties, especially in regard to labour and social welfare.

The language “make known to them” reinforces the paternalistic nature of this document. It envisages that indigenous students will be passive recipients of information selected to be bestowed on them by expert (western) teachers. Indigenous people are assumed to have nothing of value to add and therefore have no input into the process.

It is also worth noting that the HRE contemplated in Article 26 is much narrower than the HRE seen in the general legal instruments critiqued in section IV above. Here the HRE is limited to labour and social welfare, rather than education in respect of the broader ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms.’

The first attempt at addressing HRE for indigenous people was without doubt an unmitigated disaster. However, this convention should not necessarily be seen as representing general consensus as it was ratified by only 27 states. It was subsequently substantially revised in 1989 by ILO Convention 169, although this instrument has received even less support, being ratified by only 14 states.

B. ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 (1989)

The ILO’s second attempt at a convention relating to indigenous people was a step forward, but still fell well short of the aspirations of many indigenous people. A glance at the Convention’s title reveals a shift in thinking, with the change from ‘populations’ to ‘peoples’, and the term ‘peoples’ is used throughout the convention. This is a significant because ICCPR Article 1 guarantees the right of self-determination to all peoples. Thus ILO Convention 169 recognises that indigenous persons may freely pursue their economic, social and cultural identity and freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. However, this is not the recognition in international law that it first appears to be, because in the very same document it is stated that the “use of the term ‘peoples’ in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to that term under international law.”[34] Nevertheless, the use of this word is of symbolic significance because it is the first time that indigenous people have been recognised as ‘peoples’ in an international instrument.

1. Education programmes and services for the peoples concerned shall be developed and implemented in co-operation with them to address their special needs, and shall incorporate their histories, their knowledge and technologies, their value systems and their further social, economic and cultural aspirations.

1. Governments shall adopt measures appropriate to the traditions and cultures of the peoples concerned, to make known to them their rights and duties, especially in regard to labour, economic opportunities, education, health matters, social welfare and their rights deriving from this Convention.

Article 27(1) represents a major improvement on Convention 107 by requiring that governments must involve indigenous peoples in the process of developing educational programs. Furthermore, there is recognition that the education should not be limited to western/colonial history and values, but rather must incorporate indigenous history and values. This lends support to the argument raised in this paper that HRE for indigenous people needs to be developed by them and address the rights that are most important to them. For HRE to be relevant and appropriate it must be contextualised and address the needs, aspirations and cultural memory of indigenous people.

The HRE mandated in Article 30 is an expansion of the narrow labour and social welfare rights seen in Article 26 of the earlier convention, but is still not as broad as the HRE seen in the non-indigenous specific instruments considered in section IV. The reference to ‘rights deriving from this Convention’ in Article 30(1) is significant because it captures a number of collective rights.[35] Thus the responsibility to provide education about rights includes collective rights.

The continued use of the paternalistic language ‘make known to them’ in Article 30 is a concern, as is the language ‘adopt measures appropriate’ since it is silent as to who is to determine the appropriateness of such measures. It would clearly be unacceptable neo-colonialism if it were the state rather than indigenous people themselves who determined what was appropriate.

Notwithstanding the deficiencies of ILO Convention 169, it remains the only legally binding international instrument on indigenous rights. However, as stated above, it has received minimal support, having been ratified by only 14 states, the majority of which are South American countries. This suggests that the greater recognition of indigenous rights in this convention, compared to ILO Convention 107, was not widely endorsed by member states.

C. UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Draft Declaration)

1982 saw the UN establish the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (Working Group) [36] which marked the start of formal relations between the UN and indigenous peoples. One of the tasks of the Working Group was to develop international standards concerning indigenous rights. It did this by preparing the Draft Declaration which in 1994 was adopted by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and submitted to the Commission on Human Rights, which established an open-ended inter-sessional working group to continue consideration of this document.

Articles 15 and 16 of the Draft Declaration are particularly pertinent to this paper and provide:-

Indigenous children have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. All indigenous peoples also have this right and the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations appropriately reflected in all forms of education and public information.

States shall take effective measures, in consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to eliminate all prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all segments of society.

From a HRE perspective, this language is disappointing as there is no specific reference to education about human rights. It is further evidence that there has been no attempt to link HRE with the fight for indigenous rights at the international level. Article 15 could arguably be used to assert a right to appropriate HRE since it refers to indigenous people establishing and controlling their own educational systems and institutions. However, this degree of control maybe limited by the words that follow which refer to language and methods of teaching and learning. The control seems to be limited to the delivery method rather than the content of the education itself.

It is submitted that Article 16 could be improved by the addition of a third paragraph which provides that:-

States shall take effective measures, in consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned to ensure that indigenous people receive education about human rights, including collective rights, with a view to enabling them to secure and advance their rights at the international, regional, national and local levels.

This sort of language would provide indigenous people with a valuable tool with which to claim indigenous specific HRE.

If adopted, the Draft Declaration will be submitted to the UN General Assembly for consideration and adoption. The Commission on Human Rights has set the end of the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People ie December 2004, as a target for adopting the Declaration. This seems like an unrealistic goal, given the slow progress that has been made to date in getting consensus on each Article.

D. Decade of the World's Indigenous People

The proclamation of the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People[37] followed on from the 1993 International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples.[38] The theme for the Decade is ‘indigenous people: partnership in action’. The main objective is the strengthening of international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, education and health.

Not long after the General Assembly proclaimed the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, it adopted the programme of action for the Decade.[39] This document is noteworthy because it is the first time that an international instrument has drawn any correlation between the Decade for HRE and the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. Paragraph 3 expressly states

A major objective of the Decade is the education of indigenous and non-indigenous societies concerning the situation, cultures, languages, rights and aspirations of indigenous people. In particular, efforts should be made to cooperate with the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education.

Paragraph 22 builds on this by requiring the Coordinator of the Decade and the Centre for Human Rights to:-

Develop, in collaboration with Governments, training programmes on human rights for indigenous people, including the preparation of relevant training materials, where possible in indigenous languages.

There a several other references to HRE in this programme of action, and there is a definite sense that this is considered an important part of the overall strategy relating to the Decade.

In October, 1999, the Secretary General reported on the progress being made in implementing the Programme of Activities of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, the Report was silent as to progress with implementing HRE for indigenous people. It appears that despite the references in the programme of action to linking the two Decades, no efforts have been made in this regard.

E. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

On 28 July 2000, the Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution establishing the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues[40] (PF). The PF was first suggested at the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights and marks a breakthrough in the attempts by indigenous people to have a voice in the international legal framework. However, the PF does not satisfy the demands of many indigenous people because rather than being a permanent forum on indigenous people, it is a permanent forum on indigenous issues. This is seen by many indigenous people as states continuing to refuse to extend the unqualified rights of self-determination to indigenous peoples. A further criticism is that of the 16 experts that make up the PF, only half are indigenous or nominated by indigenous organisations. The other half are government nominees. They meet once a year for ten days and have the task of:-

To date the PF has had three sessions, the second of which had the theme ‘Indigenous Children and Youth.’ One of the recommendations to come out of the second session was that:

Governments and United Nations bodies prepare specific policies and implement programmes for indigenous children and youth to promote their human rights, strengthen, recover and conserve their languages, promote their culture and education, reaffirm their traditional knowledge, and contribute to their self-esteem.[41]

This is a strong indication that the PF sees human rights education for indigenous children as an important issue to be addressed. However, the PF’s mandate is rather limited in that it is only a subsidiary organ of ECOSOC authorised to discuss indigenous issues and provide expert advice and recommendations. It has no authority to bring about any substantive change. This remains the prerogative of the established organs of the UN where only states have a voice, with the result that indigenous people have little or no power. Only time will tell how influential the PF will be, but this author certainly has some concerns about the extent to which it will be able to effect real change in the way in which the UN addresses (or fails to address) indigenous issues.

F. Special Rapporteur

In April 2001 the Commission on Human Rights appointed Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen of Mexico as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, for a period of three years.[42] In April this year his term was extended for a further three years. The Special Rapporteur submitted his first report in February 2002.[43] This report identifies the major human rights issues facing indigenous people. These include poverty, land rights and self-determination. Education is mentioned, but only in the context of language and accessibility. HRE (or rather the lack of it) is not identified as a major concern and HRE is not recognised as a means of combating other human rights problems.

The Special Rapporteur could be a critical lever in the fight for indigenous HRE. This individual is in a unique position to channel concerns of indigenous people back to the UN and to make recommendations about how to improve the human rights situation of indigenous peoples around the world. He could use his position of influence to focus the UN’s attention on the need for indigenous people to gain the knowledge and skills that will allow them to access and use the international mechanisms that exist to proactively secure and expand their rights. To date however, HRE has not been a major theme in the Special Rapporteur’s reports to the UN.

G. Conclusion Regarding the Work of the UN and the ILO Relating to Indigenous People and HRE

The above summary of the UN and ILO’s work relating to indigenous peoples illustrates that while there is increased activity in the area of indigenous rights, little of this relates to HRE for indigenous people. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that we are still years, if not decades away from seeing an agreed final text for a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, let alone a legally binding convention. If there is to be any progress in the near future regarding HRE for indigenous people, it seems likely that will come from civil society rather than from states or the UN.

VI. WORK OF NGO’S RELATING TO INDIGENOUS HRE

It is often the case that NGOs are working on an issue long before international organisations perceive it as a concern that needs to be addressed. For example, long before the UN declared the Decade for Human Rights Education, a group of NGOs joined together and organised the People’s Decade for Human Rights Education (1991-2001).

While HRE for indigenous people has not yet been recognised in international law, it has been the subject of intense work by a number of NGOs. This section examines the efforts of NGOs in providing HRE for indigenous peoples.

A good overall review of current HRE programs by NGOs for indigenous people is contained in the recently published report of the Ford Foundation[44] entitled International Human Rights Training for Indigenous Peoples.[45] However, it should be noted that the review was restricted to human rights training which is more limited than human rights education, and was also constrained to international programs, thereby excluding from the study regional or local initiatives.

The review of HRE for indigenous people found only two programs which met the criteria for the study[46] namely the courses run by the International Training Centre of Indigenous Peoples in Greenland and the Saami Council based in Finland and Norway. These and many other NGOs[47] are doing valuable work in the area of indigenous HRE, but their work tends to be only short term training programs, which are no substitute for long-term in depth HRE.

NGO initiatives relating to HRE are not all beneficial and indigenous people must carefully examine the proposed curriculum and methodology to judge for themselves the extent to which the project is in harmony with their beliefs, values, rights and aspirations. It has been observed that:

HROs [Human Rights Organisations] usually take a universalist approach to human rights education. They begin with a predetermined package of rights applicable to all and seek to educate the target population regarding these rights.... [48]

It is clear that before embarking on any HRE program for indigenous people, NGOs must reflect on, and question the curriculum and methodology of the HRE programs they are offering. Notwithstanding these criticisms of HRE programs that NGOs are providing, recognition must be given for the work that they are doing in this area; these invariably under-resourced bodies are doing their best to assume the responsibility, and deliver the services which are fundamentally the duty of government to provide.

VII. PROBLEMS WITH HRE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

HRE for indigenous people cannot be considered in isolation. It must be understood and examined in the context of the overall history of indigenous people including colonisation, ongoing social and economic disadvantage, undermining of cultural integrity, health problems, limitations on the right of self-determination, land title and access, and in Australia, issues surrounding mandatory detention, deaths in custody and the ‘Stolen Generation’.[49] The past atrocities and oppression that indigenous people have endured have a significant impact on what is appropriate HRE for indigenous people. This section analyses some of the human rights issues that concern indigenous people and should therefore influence their HRE programs.

A. Emphasis on Respecting Rather than Asserting Rights

One of the weaknesses of the human rights framework is that it requires those whose rights are being violated to argue, fight for and assert their rights. Human rights laws assume that all individuals are equally assertive, purposeful, knowledgeable and forceful. However, for indigenous people these rights and freedoms can be largely irrelevant if they do not know they have them, and more importantly how to enforce them. If a human rights victim lacks the voice to assert their rights, they are a much easier ‘target’. This is well demonstrated in a cartoon from the early 1990s which depicts an aboriginal lawyer listening to a rather aggressive white man who looking across the table, says to the aboriginal lawyer “You used to be much easier to deal with when you were naïve and trusting”.[50] The more skills, knowledge and confidence that indigenous people have about human rights and the mechanisms for enforcing them, the less likely they are to be the object of human rights violations.

Thus HRE for indigenous people is of vital importance and should incorporate and emphasise the legal framework encompassing human rights and the associated enforcement mechanisms. One aim of HRE for indigenous people should be that as a result of the education they receive, indigenous people can participate actively and effectively in human rights advocacy and lobbying. Knowledge and understanding about how the human rights system works will enable indigenous people to become successful advocates for indigenous rights in their communities, countries, regions and even globally.[51]

B. Focus on Individual Rather than Collective Rights

A common complaint of indigenous people is that the modern human rights system prioritises individual rights over those of the community, and civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights. Indigenous groups, as well as many people in developing nations argue that the basis of the UN human rights system is founded on a western concept that the individual is at the centre of society, rather than non-western ideology which holds that the community is the basis of society.

Indigenous people have a greater sense of community in terms of both rights and responsibilities and thus place greater importance on collective rights over individual rights. This is seen in the Draft Declaration which refers to the collective rights of indigenous peoples in six separate articles.[52] Contrast this with the major human rights instruments[53] where there is a notable absence of references to collective rights, and also with the UN complaint mechanisms where only individuals can make a communication to a treaty body, and that communication cannot be in respect of an alleged breach of a collective right, such as the right of self-determination.[54]

HRE for indigenous people must not be limited to a narrow articulation of human rights as being the individual’s entitlement, but must also incorporate education about collective rights to land, natural resources, cultural integrity and control over development. For education about human rights to be relevant to indigenous people there needs to be recognition of this different understanding of human rights. HRE for indigenous people should therefore encourage them to think creatively about how they might have their collective rights recognised within the international human rights legal framework.

C. Lack of Consideration of the Right of Self-determination

For countless people around the world, decolonisation was synonymous with self-determination. This is particularly evident in many African nations, where the removal from power of the European settlers meant that the original people were able to determine their own future. However, this is not the case for many of the world’s indigenous people, including for example the Australian and Canadian Aborigines, the Maori of Aotearoa/New Zealand and Native American Tribes. For many indigenous people self-determination; the right to control their own destinies is the most fundamental of the human rights norms. It is also the one least likely to be the subject of state sponsored HRE. School curricula are set by the state, and it is the sovereign state that is most hostile to the concept of self-determination for indigenous people.[55]

It is this issue of the right of self-determination that most markedly differentiates the HRE needs of indigenous people from the HRE needs of the dominant culture. The dominant population has little interest in concentrating on the right of self-determination, whereas, to not have this right as a core part of indigenous HRE would make a mockery of the whole concept of HRE.

There are a variety of ways in which the concept of self-determination could be incorporated into HRE for indigenous people. Firstly there are a number of international instruments which should be analysed and understood including UN Charter, Article 1(2); ICCPR, Articles 1 and 27; ICESCR, Article 1; the Friendly Relations Declaration;[56] the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,[57] paragraph 2; and the Draft Declaration, Article 3.

Self-determination is also widely acknowledged to be a principle of customary international law and even jus cogens, a peremptory norm[58] and this too should be covered in the HRE. It is not enough, however, that indigenous people are educated about the ‘black letter law’ relating to self-determination; they also need to understand the fear that underlies states’ resistance to acknowledging indigenous people’s right to self determination and how to combat this resistance.

D. Invisibility of Indigenous People in the Core Documents used for HRE

The foundations of most HRE programs are the major international instruments, including the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR. Yet indigenous people are largely invisible in these instruments. It was not until 1989 that a UN treaty included express reference to indigenous people; the Convention on the Rights of the Child has the honour of being the first UN treaty to make specific mention of indigenous people.[59]

If HRE is to have any credibility with indigenous people, it must be seen to be relevant to their lives and struggles. Thus care must be taken to ensure that education about the main human rights instruments demonstrates how they can be used in the indigenous struggle for human rights, not withstanding the absence of explicit references to indigenous peoples. Education founded on these main human rights documents should be supplemented and complemented by the human rights instruments and initiatives which do specifically relate to indigenous people as set out in section V above.

E. Teaching Environment and Methodology

Care must be taken not to repeat past practices in education where indigenous students were expected to be passive recipients of information selected to be bestowed on them by an expert teacher from the dominant culture. It is essential that flexible teaching methods be employed that incorporate indigenous learning methods. These could involve HRE being taught through storytelling, art, theatre, dance and rituals.

It is a sad reality that there is a dearth of indigenous people qualified to teach HRE. Until this shortfall can be overcome, alternative arrangements must be made. In Australia, it is recommended that only culturally qualified teachers are used in indigenous education. This practice should carry over into HRE for indigenous people. A culturally qualified teacher is one who is perceived by the indigenous community to possess important knowledge about traditional or contemporary life.[60]

One way to overcome the shortfall in qualified HRE teachers would be to organise ‘Training of Trainers’ workshops. These have been run by the World Federalist Movement in a number of countries[61] and have been described as “encourag[ing] local participants to build educational strategies based on indigenous traditions while gaining from the experience of educators from around the world who have undertaken similar programs.”[62] It is suggested that the focus of HRE for indigenous people at this time should not be to attempt to provide HRE to the maximum number of indigenous people, but rather to first consult with indigenous people to ascertain their needs regarding HRE, and then to train the maximum number of indigenous people as educators who can provide the required HRE to their communities.

F. Consultation with Indigenous People

In the past, there was a tendency for education of indigenous people to be imposed from ‘on high’ with no discussion before, during or after as to the appropriateness of that education for the people concerned. In more recent times we are seeing a diminishing of this practice. It is essential that before any HRE program for indigenous people is contemplated there is extensive consultation (following correct cultural protocol) with the indigenous community. Thereafter, indigenous people should be involved throughout, that is in the planning, implementation and review of any program.

Indigenous people should set the curriculum to which educators then work to, for only indigenous people truly understand the historical experience and contemporary aspirations of their people, and therefore the form and manner of HRE that is relevant. To have outsiders determine or impose a HRE curriculum is further colonisation. With HRE, as with all issues relating to indigenous people, the indigenous people themselves must be active participants in the discussion, and not mere objects of the debate.

VIII. CONCLUSION

In a matter of months the UN Decades for Human Rights Education and for the World's Indigenous People will end, having achieved arguably nothing more than mere symbolism.

The international human rights framework can be used to challenge the systemic problems that indigenous people face, and appropriate HRE is one of the best ways of ensuring that indigenous people can effectively access the human rights system to secure their rights. As Mick Dodson put it:

[W]e have to get a whole lot wiser about accessing the spe trum of the international system, whether they be the treaty bodies, the World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the Security Council...we’re fools if we don’t get on with the business of making use of what are some very powerful tools.[63]

HRE specifically designed for indigenous people can be used to provide this wisdom and knowledge about how to maximise the ‘powerful tool’ that is international human rights law.

As this paper demonstrates, changes are needed at both the international and domestic levels if indigenous people are to receive the HRE to which they are entitled. Not only do the problems identified above need to be addressed, but other barriers to HRE generally need to be overcome. An analysis of these barriers is beyond the scope of this paper, but for the sake of completeness should be mentioned. They include issues such as lack of adequate funding; lack of political will to implement HRE; lack of teacher training about HRE at the university level; and lack of legislation mandating HRE. [64]

[*] Senior Fellow, Faculty of Law, The University of Melbourne; PhD Candidate, The University of Melbourne.

[2] This paper uses the UN understanding of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ as set out in the United Nations Guide for Indigenous Peoples, namely, ‘Indigenous peoples are the inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to other people and to the environment. Indigenous peoples have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Despite their cultural differences, the various groups of indigenous peoples around the world share common problems related to the protection of their rights as distinct peoples’. Accessed at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/indileaflet1.doc> on 6 May 2004.

[3] The one exception to this dearth of scholarly work on HRE for indigenous people is the excellent work of Lynda Frost: ‘Human Rights Education Programs for Indigenous People: Teaching Whose Human Rights?’ (1995) 7 St. Thomas Law Review 699.

[4] The term ‘law’ is used here loosely to refer to UN and ILO initiatives relating to indigenous people. While there is a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, there is still no treaty encompassing such rights.

[5] For example, The People’s Decade for Human Rights Education, Amnesty International and Asian Regional Resource Centre for Human Rights Education.

[6] The term ‘generally western’ refers to the situation where a member of the dominant group in a society is providing instruction to the minority indigenous people.

[8] Claire Charters, ‘The Utility of International Fora and Institutions to Resolve Tensions Between Women’s Rights and Indigenous Customary Law’, Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Society of International Law Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, July 2003, 5.

[9] For example the Ugandan Sabiny peoples’ elders leading the movement to eradicate female genital mutilations. Ibid 9.

[10] Plan of Action of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), A/51/506/Add.1

[12] Speech of the Governor-General of Australia at the opening of Beyond Tolerance: A National Conference On Racism 12 March 2002 accessed at

[13] It is acknowledged that ‘tolerance’ is the term used in many of the international conventions discussed in section III. Thus the comments made here in relation to the use of this language in defining HRE apply equally to a critique of the convention articles themselves.

[14] A body set up under the Convention on the Rights of the Child which is made up of ten independent experts whose job is to monitor compliance with the treaty as well as to assist with the interpretation of treaty obligations.

[18] The initiatives analysed in this section do not purport to be an exhaustive critique of HRE initiatives at the international level, but rather an examination of the most significant ones. There are many other declarations, resolutions and even conventions that mention or refer to HRE including for example, Article 8 of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 5 of the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, Article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and Article 3 of the ILO Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation No. 111.

[22] An eighteen member panel of experts established pursuant to Article 8 of CERD.

[23] CERD was adopted by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) in 1965 and entered into force on 4 January 1969. To date CERD has been ratified by 161 States, and it was only in the 1990s that it was overtaken by CROC as the most widely ratified treaty.

[24] There are however, arguments for asserting that the widespread acceptance of the UDHR means that the rights enunciated in the declaration are part of customary international law.

[25] This inability to agree on a single covenant covering civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights was because of the varying importance that different states attached to these two classes of rights. Broadly speaking the western states prioritised civil and political rights, and were prepared to have these monitored by the UN, but were not supportive of having the same sort of concrete provisions apply to economic, social and cultural rights, being the rights prioritised by developing states.

[27] Individuals residing in States that have ratified the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR may lodge a communication with the Human Rights Committee.

[30] For example the guidelines suggest that states answer the question “Is secondary education, including technical and vocational secondary education, generally available and accessible to all?” and provide “statistics on literacy, enrolment in fundamental education with information on rural areas, adult and continuing education, drop-out rates at all levels of education as well as graduating rates at all levels.”

[31] The United States of America and Somalia are the only two states that have not ratified CROC.

[35] For example Article 5(b), Government to respect indigenous values, practices and institutions; Article 7(1), Right of indigenous people to exercise control over their own economic, social and cultural development; and Article 13(1), Government to respect collective nature of indigenous peoples’ relationship with their lands.

[36] In particular, ECOSOC established the Working Group as a subsidiary arm of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

[44] A philanthropic organisation founded in 1936 to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement.

[46] To be included, the program had to have a primary goal of increasing indigenous people’s capacity to access and use rights-based mechanisms in the international system; be designed for indigenous participation solely, or at least in a large or very significant part; not be a degree-granting academic program; and draw participants from across regions or continents.

[47] For example the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education in Geneva, Switzerland; Minority Rights Group International in London, UK; Forest peoples Program in Moreton-in Marsh, UK; and Institute for Human Rights, Abo Akademi University in Turku/Abo, Finland.

[49] See the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Bringing them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, tabled in Federal Parliament on 26 May 1997,

[50] This cartoon was described by Margaret Reynolds in her presentation at the Australian Government and Self-Determination Conference, reported in Christine Fletcher (ed), Aboriginal Self-Determination in Australia (1994) 16. Original source of cartoon unknown.

[51] Ford Foundation, International Human Rights Training for Indigenous Peoples (2002) 21.

[54] Although Article 27 of the ICCPR has been interpreted in a way that recognises that individual rights can be exercised in community with others, notwithstanding that, a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee can only be made by an individual: see Kitok v Sweden, Communication No 197/1985, UN Doc CCPR/C/33/D (27 July 1988); Ominayak v Canada, Communication No 167/1984, Human Rights Committee, Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc A/45/50 (1990).

[55] This is clearly demonstrated in the negotiations surrounding the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

[56] GA Res. 2625, Declaration of the Principles of International Law Governing Friendly Relations Between States (25 UNGAOR 121).

[60]Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Early Childhood Teacher’s Handbook accessed at

[61] Including the former Czechoslovakia, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Benin and Ghana.

[62] Note by the Secretariat to the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference on Human Rights, dated 20 April 1993, A/CONF.157/PC/63/Add.12.

[63] Mick Dodson, ‘Linking International Standards with Contemporary Concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Peoples’ in Sarah Pritchard (ed.), Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights (1998) 21-22.

[64] The Committee on the Rights of the Child noted in General Comment 1 that without specific formal endorsement in national law or policy it is unlikely that HRE will genuinely inform educational policies (para 16) .

a.	Providing expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to ECOSOC;
b.	Raising awareness and promoting the integration and coordination of activities relating to indigenous issues within the UN system; and
c.	Preparing and disseminating information on indigenous issues.

Deakin Law Review