an ngo in consultative status with ecosoc
american
indian law alliance
to hear the voices of our people, even unto the SEVENTH generation
In December 2003, the United Nations convened an expert seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between states and Indigenous peoples. Although the subject of the seminar was not specifically the Study on treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements submitted by the Special Rapporteur, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, at the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, this document obviously played a critical role in the Treaty Seminar. Approximately 50 delegates participated including representatives of the American Indian Law Alliance and the Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council, who were specifically invited by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. We were represented by Kent Lebsock (Lakota) who is the Executive Director of the Law Alliance and Charmaine White Face (Lakota), who now serves as the Spokesperson for the Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council.
Prior to convening the meeting, each delegation that participated was invited to submit a report and/or recommendations for the Treaty Seminar. The American Indian Law Alliance and the Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council were anxious to emphasize the need for international oversight of abrogated treaties and recognition of the conclusions that were contained in Professor Martinez's report, especially the international nature of our treaties. The complete text of our recommendations can be found by following the link at the top of this page.
Canda was the one government that participated in force. Their objective was to emphasize what they called a difference between "historical" treaties and "modern" treaties. Historical treaties were apparently any of those treaties that were internatoinal in nature and had been abbrogated by nation states (i.e., all of our treaties). Modern treaties are an attempt to again ignore the provisions of legitimate internationally binding treaties and renegotiate them in "modern" times within the confines of the domestic jurisdiction of whatever country (or successor country) the treaty had been signed with (i.e., the United States or Canada in our cases).
Although the United States boycotted the Seminar, they did appear on the next to the last day insisting on making an intervention after the end of a session over the objections of the Chair (and the translators who had to stay to translate the U.S. representatives words). In their statement the United States attacked the Special Rapporteur for using unscholarly methods in writing the Treaty Study (no examples were given), accused the High Commission for Human Rights of overstepping its bounds in convening the Seminar (although the Study and Seminar are clearly within the purview of their obligations to the United Nations system) and stated that Indigenous participants included individuals who did not represent the U.S. federally approved tribal authorities (i.e., our traditional leadership). They then left. The Seminar participants went on with our business.
The recommendations from the Seminar include many very positive positions for things we have been seeking for some time. For example, the recommendations (which were co-authored with Indigenous representatives) state that the Commission on Human Rights should:
"consider recommending that the Economic and Soical Council seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in relation to treaties and agreements between States and indigenous peoples."
The document is definitely worth reviewing. The Recommendations from the Seminar and other information can be found at http://www.unhchr.ch/indigenous/treaties.htm.
611 Broadway
Suite 632
New York, NY
10012
1.212.477.9100 phone
1.212.477.0004 fax
aila@ailanyc.org