|
19. Within the Inter-American legal system, the 1996 Declaration of Panama on the Inter-American Contribution to the Development and Codification of International Law underlines in its preamble that “it is necessary for the member states to reaffirm their full support for the progressive development and codification of international law”. The 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter also refers to the “progressive development of international law”.
20. In regard to environmental protection, the 1975 Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki Final Act) declares that participating Status are committed to “promoting the progressive development, codification and implementation of international law”.
21. Therefore, in relation to the standard-setting process concerning Indigenous peoples’ rights, there can be no justification whatsoever for the U.N. and its member States to refuse to explicitly affirm, and adhere to, the Purposes and Principles of the U.N. Charter. Similarly, it would be a discriminatory double standard to refuse to ensure that the norms in the draft U.N. Declaration are “consistent with international law and its progressive development”.
22. In regard to Recommendation ii) above, we propose the adoption of “new and dynamic methods of work” within the Working Group. This reflects the specific recommendation made to the Commission on Human Rights in the 2005 report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2005/87, p. 8, para. 32).
23. With regard to Recommendation iii) above, we believe that the knowledge and findings of Special Rapporteurs Rodolfo Stavenhagen and Erica-Irene Daes and other experts on Indigenous peoples’ human rights could assist the Working Group in resolving outstanding
differences. Need to eliminate State discrimination
24. In all regions of the world, rampant discrimination and dispossession of Indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources have resulted in an ongoing legacy of severe impoverishment. This widespread poverty has in turn led to further discrimination and denial of our human rights.
25. Yet some States continue to obstruct and deny us affirmation of our collective human rights in the U.N. standard-setting process. As a result, the legacy of impoverishment and dispossession is not being effectively redressed.
26. As concluded in the May 2003 Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities, “It is highly important to … safeguard fundamental collective human rights”.
27. Recognition and respect for the right of self-determination and other collective human rights establish an essential context for the enjoyment and exercise of Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources. Without an adequate land and resource base, our impoverishment by States and others will continue. This threatens our collective and individual security. The survival and well-being of distinct Indigenous peoples are being jeopardized.
28. Further, the impoverishment of Indigenous peoples and communities has had and continues to have a devastating and disproportionate impact on Indigenous women and children. Twenty-eight U.N. independent experts jointly affirmed last December that “Indigenous women face multiple forms of discrimination, both as women and as members of the indigenous community.”
29. As highlighted in CHR Resolution 2005/54, “tolerance and respect for diversity and the universal promotion and protection of human rights are mutually supportive”.
30. If States are firmly committed to respect for human rights, as well as justice, diversity, equality and non-discrimination, they must not deny us affirmation of our collective human rights under international law.
31. As emphasized by Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen in his August 2004 report, “If the Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, particular attention must be paid to the rights of indigenous peoples.”
1,
2, 3
|
