an ngo in consultative status with ecosoc 

american indian law alliance 
to hear the voices of our people, even unto the SEVENTH generation 

2006 InterSessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration

Why International Work 

Border Crossing Rights

Urban Indian

Our Own Voices

Report on the 10^th Session of the InterSessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of the World's Indigenous Peoples

SEPTEMBER 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For a copy of AILA's complete report on the Xth Session in PDF format please click on REPORT

• The chairman of the Working Group, Sr. Chavez, seemed to have his own agenda for completing the Draft Declaration before the end of his tenure in December 2004.  It was generally agreed amongst the Indigenous representatives that his plan to discuss every preambular paragraph and article in the Declaration during this two week session, despite the fact that many had never been addressed (including the critical issues of lands, territories and resources and treaties), seemed to undermine the substantive work of the 10^th session and the effective participation of Indigenous delegates.  Some speculated that by reporting to the Commission on Human Rights (“CHR”) that every article had been “discussed” and consensus was not reached, he would be justified in submitting a completely original text (incorporating unacceptable language from States) without the direct approval of Indigenous peoples.  Some of these fears were validated in the release of the Chairman’s summary (E/CN.4/2004/WG.15/CRP.4; 14 October 2004) which utilized an alternative text (CRP.1) as the basis of his report.

• Almost everyone in the Indigenous Caucus agreed that additional time was needed in order to come to a consensus that would give Indigenous nations and peoples a Declaration that justified the years of sacrifice of our leaders and elders and adequately protected the rights of our future generations.

• Although the Chair seemed to close the door on this possibility, there were indications from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), that it was not unreasonable.  The CHR representative who opened the meeting said that additional time might be necessary and, historically, the CHR has never abandoned a Declaration on any human rights issues (especially after 20 years of work).  The best way, however, to get additional time would be to show that substantial and productive progress was being made in the Intersessional Working Group.

• There was increased cooperation between some States and Indigenous peoples.  Many thought we could have reached consensus on as many as 20 articles and paragraphs if the Chair had called for a vote.  For many, the “order of work”, “the method of work”, and the Chair’s own inclinations seemed to conspire against encouragement of this increased cooperation.  It is important to note that the Chair has defined consensus as meaning that no one objects which in effect would allow one State the power to veto specific language even if the overwhelming majority of Indigenous delegates and States come to an agreement. 

• Nonetheless, we had our supporters.  Guatemala and Mexico fought hard for much of the original language as well as some language changes that met our criteria (improved clarity of Indigenous rights, consistency with human rights law, and principles of non-discrimination and equality).  Even Canada conceded some major issues (acceptance of Article 3 on self-determination as drafted).  Many others States were willing to be more cooperative than ever before.

• In this spirit, a proposal was worked out between certain Indigenous nations and peoples living within Canadian borders (with the support of the Canadian State delegation) that would have provided for the very realistic opportunity of having Article 3 passed in its original language.  Article 3 calls for an unqualified right to self-determination for Indigenous peoples and, along with treaty rights, is considered the most important single article of the Declaration. 

• The “Package” proposal included;
• Article 3 as originally drafted
• preambular paragraph 15 as revised last year (which many believe actually improved the text and added to Indigenous peoples’ rights under the Declaration, referred to as the AILA/Guatemala Proposal)
• a new preambular paragraph completely consistent with Indigenous nations’ treaties (it basically states that all parties enter into this Declaration with mutual cooperation, peace and friendly relations in mind). 

This new paragraph was designed to avoid the concern of some States’ about territorial integrity, “secession”, etc.  Resolution of this issue in our favor would have been a major coup for Indigenous peoples and an end to one of the major obstacles preventing progress on the Declaration as a whole. 

• The “Package” was considered so important that the Indigenous Caucus called for a suspension of the official session to discuss it amongst ourselves for an hour (with full translation).  States were dismissed and the Indigenous Caucus met in closed session.  The proposal was put forward by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.  A long discussion ensued, but the vast majority seemed to support the proposal.  Although some delegations have a strict “no change” mandate to any of the language in the Declaration, none of them seemed willing to break consensus.  The Caucus Chair, at the insistence of some of the delegates, asked if there was anyone present who would absolutely oppose this proposal coming forth as a Caucus consensus statement.  Oral objection came from only three delegations.  Support for the consensus statement came from Indigenous blocks as large as the Latin American Caucus, the Asian Caucus and the African Caucus along with substantial support from North American and Pacific Rim delegations.  

• The passage of Article 3 as set forth in the original Draft Declaration and approved by the Subcommission would have also represented enormous progress in terms of the work of the Intersessional Working Group, and made it next to impossible for the CHR to not extend the time necessary to work on the other articles.  Passage of Article 3 could also make it less difficult to find consensus on the other articles.  Article 3 provides the framework for the entire Declaration and from there the details are much easier to fill in. 

• The Draft Declaration must preserve the right of self-determination for Indigenous peoples in compliance with both our own objectives and the tenants of existing international law.  It has the added advantage of also permitting the evolution of international law to be more just and equitable for all the world’s peoples.  This is the amazing legacy that Indigenous peoples can leave for our descendants and the world as a whole.  The “Package” proposal presented by the vast majority of Indigenous nations, organizations and peoples, along with the support of many States, represents a major breakthrough in advancing the aspirations of Indigenous peoples and moving the Declaration into the body of international law and standards that govern our relations with one another and with the environment upon which we all depend. 

• The InterSessional Working Group will meet for the 2^nd part of the 10^th Session from November 29 through December 3, 2004.  Delegations who participated in the September session of the InterSessional Working Group need not reregister for the December session.  However, new participants may either contact the American Indian Law Alliance for further information or the secrtariat of the Commission on Human Rights (jburger@ohchr.org).

611 Broadway
Suite 632
New York, NY
10012

1.212.477.9100 phone

1.212.477.0004 fax

aila@ailanyc.org