AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 1998 >> [1998] IndigLawB 46

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Dodson, Mick --- "United Nations Commission on Human Rights" [1998] IndigLawB 46; (1998) 4(12) Indigenous Law Bulletin 12


United Nations Commission on Human Rights

By Mick Dodson

The UN Commission on Human Rights (‘the Commission’) held its fifty fourth session in Geneva between 16 March–24 April 1998. The Commission dealt with ‘Indigenous Issues’[1] under agenda item 23.[2] I was fortunate to be in Geneva at the time for meetings of the Indigenous Voluntary Fund and attended the meetings of the Commission when the item was discussed.[3] Below is a summary of the proceedings.

There were 3 issues set for discussion under this item, namely:

  1. A permanent forum for Indigenous peoples at the UN;
  2. The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the ‘draft declaration’), elaborated by the Commission on Human Rights working group (‘CHRWG’);4
  3. The International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

Issues at the Commission are usually dealt with by way of draft resolutions, which are discussed in interventions (statements) from the floor by representatives who have status to speak in the forum.

Draft resolutions are sponsored by a government or a number of governments and are generally available well before the session starts or at least in advance of the discussion on the item. The advance presentation of draft resolutions enables not only sponsoring governments to recruit other sponsors, but also provides an opportunity for non–government organizations to have an input into the process, even influencing the final wording that goes before the Commission for debate. This process usually occurs outside the meetings. After general debate and statements, resolutions are generally deferred to a later stage in the session for voting on by member states of the Commission.

A permanent forum

Indigenous representatives to various UN meetings and fora have been calling for a permanent forum in the UN system for some time. Official UN movement on the issue arose out of recommendations pertaining to Indigenous peoples in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights.[4] The Commission had before it a report[5] of a second workshop on a permanent forum for Indigenous peoples in the UN system, which the Commission had requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene.[6] Also available to the Commission were the comments of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (the ‘WGIP’), from the report of its most recent fifteenth session.[7].

On the morning of 9 April[8] the Commission had to consider a draft resolution[9] elaborated by the Nordic countries led by Denmark.[10]

The main thrust of the resolution was:

The debate on the resolution was postponed to the afternoon meeting after lively resistance from the Cuban delegation ostensibly because of resource implications for the UN.[14]

The resolution was carried without a vote in the afternoon meeting of 9 April 1998.

The Commission on Human Rights Working Group on the draft declaration

A resolution concerning the CHRWG was introduced by Canada, and Australia was among the co–sponsors. The draft resolution:[15]

The resolution was adopted without a vote on 9 April 1998. It was a bit of a ‘smoke and mirrors’ trick because the Commission is not empowered to authorize sessions of the CHRWG, which is established under the authority of the General Assembly of the United Nations.[16] The resolution is by way of a recommendation to ECOSOC which wields the real authority over functional Commissions and their working groups.

Working Group on Indigenous Populations

The WGIP was established by the ECOSOC in 1982.[17] The Commission had before it the reports of the previous session of the WGIP (its fifteenth session) and that of the Sub–Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (its forty–ninth session).[18] A resolution concerning the WGIP was introduced by New Zealand and co–sponsored, among other countries, by Australia and carried.[19]

In the resolution, the Commission:

(a) preparing relevant programmes, plans and reports for the Decade and establishing national committees and other mechanisms involving Indigenous peoples to ensure that the objectives and activities of the Decade are planned and implemented on the basis of a full partnership with Indigenous peoples;

(b) seeking means of giving Indigenous peoples greater responsibility for their own affairs and an effect voice in decisions on matters that affect them;

(c) identifying resources for activities designed to implement the goals of the Decade.

Conclusion

I think I am justified in saying that Indigenous issues received discriminatory treatment in the Commission, at least by some nation states. The overwhelming impression I was left with, coming out of my first visit as an observer to the UN Commission on Human Right, was the seemingly perfunctory way in which the Indigenous Issues agenda item was dealt with. I also left with a bitter feeling that undue attention was given by some states to the costs associated with the establishment of the ad hoc working group on the permanent forum. Similar scrutiny was not levelled at resolutions under other agenda items that carried similar cost implications.

The abiding memories will no doubt be the intense security associated with the session and the very robust and frank nature of the debate. Nation states, in criticizing other states and each other over human rights violations, certainly cannot be said to ‘mince their words’.

Mick Dodson is Director of the IndigenousLaw Centre, Law Faculty, University of NSW.


[1] In its decision 1996/102 the Commission on Human Rights decided to add a new permanent agenda item, entitled ‘Indigenous Issues’, to its agenda.

[2] See Annotations to the Provisional Agenda—UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/1/Add I, pp 40–41, paras 180–185.

[3] General statements were heard at meetings of the Commission on 26–27 March 1998 and voting on resolutions took place 9 April 1998.

[4] See UN Doc A/CONF 157/23, in particular the recommendation that the establishment of a permanent forum should be considered within the framework of the International Decade of the World’s

Indigenous Peoples.

[5] UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/11 and Add I.

[6] By resolution 1997/30, the second workshop was held in Santiago de Chile from 30 June to 2 July 1997.

[7] UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub. 2/1997/14 paras 109–124

[8] There were a large number of interventions from Indigenous representatives (including from Australia), NGOs, UN Agencies & Government delegations on this issue and the other two issues under the agenda item on March 27–28. A full copy of all written interventions can be obtained from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples Unit, United Nations, Palais des Nations, CH—1211 GENEVE 10 Switzerland.

[9] UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/L 24.

[10] Among the co–sponsors of the resolution were; Argentina, Angora, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Estonia, Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the Ukraine. Notably, Australia was absent from the list and its attitude to a permanent forum is not known by the writer.

[11] The underlined words were added at the insistence of the USA during the debate. This may be unlawful because the Vienna Conference (which is effectively the General Assembly and parent body of the Commission) clearly talked about the ‘the establishment of’, not the ‘possible’ establishment of a permanent forum.

[12] CHR resolution 1995/32 and attached annexure.

[13] ATSIC and NAILSS have ECOSOC consultative status. The list of Australian Indigenous organizations authorized to participate in the open ended working group on the declaration (as of 22 Oct. 1997) are: Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, Central Land Council, IINA Torres Strait Islander Corp., Indigenous Women Aboriginal Corp., Kimberley Land Council, HREOC– Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, National Committee to Defend Black Rights, New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and Northern Land Council.

[14] There was some support on this issue for Cuba from the USA (strangely!) and from Japan and France, although the USA’s main concern seemed to be the ongoing proliferation of new mechanisms. Brazil had all references in the draft resolution to Indigenous ‘peoples’ removed and substituted with the word ‘people’, without a whimper from anyone, including the Cuban delegation. See Pritchard ILB 1998 4(10)).

[15] UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/L 23.

[16] See General Assembly resolution 47/75 and Vienna Declaration (UN Doc A/CONF 157/23) Part II, para 28. and resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 para 5.

[17] Economic and Social Council resolution 1982/34 of 7 May 1982.

[18] UN Doc E / CN4 /Sub. 2 /1997/14, UN Doc E/CN 4/1998/2, and UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub. 2/1997/50.

[19] UN Doc E /CN 4 / 1998 / L 22.

[20] Note again the language of the Commission using the word ‘possible’. See comments above at endnote 12.

[21] A workshop is proposed for Costa Rica in

January 1999.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/1998/46.html