Indigenous People and the Right to Self-Determination - Essay Example

?Running head: Indigenous People and the Right to Self Determination Indigenous People and the Right to Self Determination In the recent times, the count of the indigenous people was taken and it was found that, they are about 370 million hosted in about 70 countries. These individuals are said to retain several social aspects which includes; traditions, politics, cultural as well as economic aspects (Ivison, Patton, & Sanders 2000). These social aspects, as compared to those of the environment they live in, are unique and differentiated. The descendants of these indigenous people live in different parts of the world especially in the arctic and southern part of the pacific. This is according to those individuals that came to reside in countries earlier during which time people encompassing diversified cultures or even diversified ethnic origins arrived. Indigenous people include some Americans, the Aleutians and Inuit who reside in circumpolar region, northern Europe’s Saami, Australia’s Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines as well as New Zealand’s Maori. As such, they have a history of unique characteristics retention and as such, these characteristics are by far differentiated when compared to those of other population segments (Ivison, Patton, & Sanders 2000). The U.N once asserted that, it is the identification of the indigenous people that can be regarded fruitful but not concentrating on trying to establish their definition. As such, the U.N based this on the criterion of self identification, which is the most fundamental approach underlain in the documents that spell out the rights of a human (Shaw 2003). The fact that the indigenous people show distinct characteristics should be taken as a positive thing and as such, they must be protected by the international law. Therefore, there are several rights which are stipulated to protect them (Shaw 2003). Such a right is the right to self determination. Self determination can be described as a principle entailed in the law applying internationally whereby, it spell out the right to choose the political status of the entire world as well as the sovereignty. During the making of the choice, there should be no any form of manipulation in the form of external compulsions and interference (Suseno, Tri & Komnas HAM (Indonesia) 2006). The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of the indigenous people and thereby establishing ways in which these individuals can enforce their self determination rights. To understand the right to self determination of the indigenous people, it is better to look at the case between the Lubicon Lake Band and Canada whereby the communication which was submitted by Bernard Ominayak, who at that time was the chief of Lubicon Lake Band resulted to a decision being made by the committee handling the case (Suseno., Tri & Komnas HAM (Indonesia) 2006). As such, in that decision, a judgement was passed out that article 27 had a quotation of rights and as such, it spelled out the persons rights who reside in a community together with other people ought to give a hand in matters concerning the economic as well as social activities (Dersso 2010). The article made a clarity emphasis that these activities should be part and parcel of the culture of the society in which they reside in. At that time, the Lubicon Lake Band had its way of life put under threat and this indeed violated article 27 (Dyson, Hendriks & Grant 2007). Claiming capacity for the self determination right by the indigenous people is the most important focus point. If indeed these individuals were given a green light to exercise the underlying capacity, then they would in a consistent push for rights associated to autonomy, which encompasses the danger related to succession (Dyson. Hendriks & Grant 2007). The indigenous persons are entitled to a standard set in regard to protection and of which puts the basis on the combination of customary law applying internationally as well as legal instruments. In order to ensure that their right to self determination is in effect, then the indigenous people ought to ensure that they maintain and develop their unique identity not only in regards to culture but also several other unique aspects which includes; spirituality, traditional way of life as well as their language (Hercock, Xanthaki & Thornberry 2005). Moreover, they ought to hold out highly their right s to social self determination whereby, they ought to depict autonomy of the highest order and concentrate on making their system of justice strong. Still, they liaise with state parties, which have signed the present covenant whereby they are supposed to promote the responsibility in regarded to the Non-Self-Governing administration as well as territories of trust. As such, it is the work of these parties to assist the indigenous people to realize their right to self determination. Also, these parties ensure that everyone pays respect to the right and that they conform to the stipulated laws as in the U.N’s Charter (Hercock, Xanthaki & Thornberry 2005). According to article 27, it is stipulated that in the countries where minorities or the indigenous people exist, discrimination should be abhorred but instead, the group should have the right whereby they will be able not only enjoy their own distinct culture and practise and profess their differentiated religion, they should also be allowed to ensure that their language is used, especially by them (Gilbert 2006). However, the provisions in article 27 do not entail the aspect of indigenousness. Consequently, a rational person would result in asking himself several questions in regards to whether indigenous people are constituted in the notion of the minor groups (Dersso 2010). Through the committee of the human rights, this is more precisely cleared. According to the committee, the groups that see themselves as unique and those that refer themselves to indigenous groups of people are indeed minorities according to the provisions of Article 27. It further asserts that some indigenous individuals can be referred to as ‘peoples’ in regards to the provision or article 27 and as such, they are beneficiaries of the self determination right (Gilbert 2006). In reference to above, it is evident that the ICCPR does not constitute a support to the position which spells the indigenous people as a unique category when peoples and minorities are taken into account. As such, the ICCPR asserts that the indigenous people are entitled to the right to self determination (Massey & I.S.P.C.K. (Organization) 2004). For indigenous people to ensure that the right to self determination is enforced, the indigenous people themselves ought to understand what it means to be part and parcel of the human race. As such, the understanding must be encompassed in a competence related to culture. An indigenous person should first understand other people living within the society and therefore taking a stop in respect to the destructive nature of the human determination (Massey & I.S.P.C.K. (Organization) 2004). By ensuring the good information is indeed passed to other people not only do it discard the status of negativity but also eliminated the chance of misinformation, which arise due to the gaps observable between the cultures, that is, the distinctive nature if the indigenous people’s culture (Hughes 2003). Acceptance must be the dominant feature if at all the right to self determination is to be realized. As such, the indigenous individuals must first develop an acceptance notion in regards to the way things are at the moment and as a reflection of the competency in culture. All this is an aim towards bypassing the discussions that entail topics regarding the violation of the human rights, absence of parity as well as the genocide of the subgroups (Hughes 2003). The behaviours that normal persons aimed towards the indigenous people tend to be an acceptable notion in regard to the predominant paradigm. Therefore, it is necessary that before trying to enforce the aspect of right to self determination, the indigenous person must first understand the notion or else, he will be seeking after something which he is not aware of. To better understand this right, then measure should be taken to enhance comprehension (Keal 2003). Such measures would include teaching of the cultural competence whereby, emphasis is put on the demands of the cultural acceptance related to carte blanche. As such, they should be delineated. In the long run, indigenous people will find that the right to self determination has been enforced (Keal 2003). Again, the indigenous people can employ the use of empowerment model. This is a powerful mechanism by which enforcement of self determination can be enhanced. According to human right activists, empowerment should be able to increase such aspects as; political, personal and interpersonal powers. When the indigenous groups take this into consideration, it is possible that their situation will be greatly improved. When the indigenous groups across the entire world contact each other and form a large network, then empowerment on self determination right will be fuelled and thus the right enforcement will be facilitated in a fast way (Tomuschat 2003). However, in most cases, it is difficult for the indigenous groups. This is because; they usually do not have sufficient networking capabilities. Worse still, they sometimes have to network with the groups that catalyse the being of their situation, which is the marginalized situation. To solve this, sometimes it is essential that these individuals find ways to intervene. They can indeed result top taking up stern measures to force the right enforcement through. Such measures would include; seeking diplomacy assist, taking advantage of the prevailing pressure in politics and sanctioning the right’s enforcement (Tomuschat 2003). Moreover, for the indigenous right to self determination to be enforced, they can make use of the human right activists. As such, human rights activists are very strong people and are readily heard since the address the essential issue of the human rights. Indeed, they are much powerful in the sense that, when they detect something wrong or a certain group of people is being discriminated, then they would raise that issue directly to the government and if the government does not recognize their grievances, then they can forward the issue to the larger society (Claude & Weston 2006). Immediately this is reported to the international court of law, the reaction is usually very fast and it would follow that stern measures will be taken against the government of the country that failed to react and if there is a specific person involved, then he is at most times prosecuted and if found guilty, a judgement is passed and that person gets an imprisonment sentence (Claude & Weston 2006). Still, the indigenous people should also ensure that they have a representative, and if possible, they elect a legislator of their own. If a minor group gets a chance to elect someone into the parliament, then they have a major boost in regard to the enforcement of the right to self determination. As such, the legislators mostly are the people who come up with the laws governing any country (Langton 2006). An indigenous person in the parliament would definitely ensure that the state comes up with policies and laws that favour his own people. He would then go ahead and approach the person in charge with justice, for instance, the justice minister and thereby complaining. There is a big probability the issue will be followed to the latter and therefore justice passed (Langton 2006). Another way that the indigenous people can ensure that the right to self determination is observed is to take an initiative and present cases of discrimination against that right to the court of law. The larger group is always continuously and openly discriminating this right and as such, the indigenous is usually unable to take an action as in most times, they are helpless. Therefore, through lawyers, the cases of discrimination against the right to self determination can be taken to court and since the judge is always neutral, a proper judgement is likely to be passed (Anaya 2004). Consequently, this is supposed to mean that the future discriminators in regard to the self determination right will be warned off and the situation might not occur but even if it does, then it will not be adversely felt (Anaya 2004). This group of indigenous people, since early 1920s, have always tried to seek the recognition of the right to self determination. They have always urged the governments across the word that they be regarded as sovereign people. They have always asserted that if this is not realizable, at least be allowed to participate (Lea 2008). From this analysis, it is clear that in any country, a human right stature exists and as such, the statue must entail mechanisms by which inconsistencies concerning different rights are resolved (Minde 2008). The law applying universally is adequate as it provides guidance in regard to the self determination right of the marginalized groups. It provides that the rights of a human are not taken as absolute values in a typical way. There is a possibility that the right to self determination to become balanced in reference to other rights of a human (Lea 2008). As such, this can only be done by making sure that any claim whose main address point is rights becomes evaluated with regard to the whole international rights framework. Indeed, it should be compromise but not abrogation of rights. Moreover, it is necessary that the indigenous people first themselves try to understand the notion of right to self determination first before pushing it for enforcement. Legislators and the human rights activists together with the courts are essential institutions as in most cases; the underlying problem is effectively and efficiently handled (Das 2001). References Anaya, S.J., 2004. Indigenous peoples in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Claude, P.R. & Weston, B.H., 2006: Human Rights in the World Community: Issues And Action Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press Das, J. K., 2001. Human rights and indigenous peoples. New Delhi: APH Publishing Dersso, S., 2010. Perspectives on the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples in Africa. London: John Willey and Sons. Dyson, L.E., Hendriks, H. and Grant, G., 2007. Information technology and indigenous people. HersheY: Idea Group Inc (IGI) Gilbert, J., 2006. Indigenous peoples' land rights under international law: from victims to actors Leiden: Brill Publishers Hercock, N.G., Xanthaki, A. & Thornberry, P., 2005. Minorities, peoples, and self-determination: essays in honour of Patrick. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Hughes, L., 2003. The no-nonsense guide to indigenous peoples, New York: Verso Brooklyn. Ivison, D., Patton, P. & Sanders, W., 2000. Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Keal, P., 2003. European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Langton, M., 2006. Settling with indigenous people: modern treaty and agreement-making. Annandale: Federation Press Lea, D., 2008. Property rights, indigenous people and the developing world: issues. Leiden: Brill Publishers Massey, J. & I.S.P.C.K. (Organization)., 2004. Indigenous people: Dalits : Dalit issues in today's theological debate. New Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Minde, H., 2008. Indigenous peoples: self-determination, knowledge, indigeneity. Mason: Cengage Learning Shaw, M.N., 2003. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Suseno, F.M., Tri, I. & Komnas HAM (Indonesia)., 2006. Indigenous people. Mason: Cengage Learning. Tomuschat, C., 2003. Modern law of self-determination. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Read More