![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Yearbook of International Law |
![]() |
Last Updated: 15 July 2015
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW
I. Introduction
No major developments regarding Indigenous peoples’ rights under
international law occurred in 2011. As in previous years,
debate continued on
the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC);1 giving effect to
art 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD);2 and, on the development of an international instrument protecting
Indigenous
peoples’ traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural
expressions (TCE) and genetic resources (GR) under the World Intellectual
Property Office (WIPO). Indigenous peoples’ rights also featured in
the concluding observations of United Nations (UN)
human rights treaty bodies
and recommendations issued under the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC)
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
process, contributing to the development of
customary international law on the rights of Indigenous peoples. New
Zealand’s
compliance with Indigenous peoples’ rights was the
subject of international oversight, with the release of the UN Special
Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples’ final report on his 2010
mission to New Zealand and a review by the Committee
on the Rights of the Child
(CRC Committee). New Zealand vocalised its commitment to Indigenous
peoples’ rights before various
international fora, including the UN
General Assembly’s (GA) Third Committee, the HRC, the UN Expert Mechanism
on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) and the UN Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues (PFII). Nationally, there were two developments regarding
Indigenous peoples’ rights of international significance: enactment of the
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
(MCA Act) and release of the
Wai262 report. This note reviews New Zealand’s state practice regarding
Indigenous peoples’
rights under international law in 2011 as well as
tracing key international developments concerning those rights.
II. Developments in Relation to International
Treaties
A. UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change
At the UNFCCC’s 17th Conference of the Parties and the 7th meeting of
the parties to the Kyoto Protocol state parties agreed,
inter alia, to reach a
universal legal agreement on climate change by 2015 and some states agreed to a
new commitment period of the
Kyoto Protocol commencing in 2013.3 Indigenous
peoples continue to express concerns related to the UNFCCC, in particular
regarding
the insufficient protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights under
REDD+, the programme for reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest
degradation through conservation, sustainable management of forests and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks.4
III. Adoption of National Laws and Regulations and Other
National Developments of International Significance
A. Marine
and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
The MCA Act, which repeals and replaces the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004
(FSA), was enacted early in 2011. The Act addresses some
of the concerns raised
by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the former
Special Rapporteur regarding
the FSA, but has been criticised by a number of iwi
and hapu for retaining discriminatory aspects.5
B. Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai262 Report
In July 2011 the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the Wai262 claim,
Ko Aotearoa Tenei.6 The report concerns the place of Maori knowledge in
contemporary law and Government policy and practice. It considers issues
relating
to cultural heritage, indigenous flora and fauna, the environment,
conservation, language, Crown guardianship of Māori knowledge,
traditional Māori healing practices and international instruments and
offers a host of recommendations. New Zealand has indicated
that the
Tribunal’s recommendations may impact its position on the form of
international protection necessary to protect
Indigenous peoples’ TK, TCE
and GR currently being negotiated through the WIPO7 and may “inform
future decision making
processes” involving Māori in New
Zealand.”
IV. International Oversight of New Zealand’s
Compliance with Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
A. UN Special
Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
In 2011 the UN Special Rapporteur released his final report on his 2010
follow-up mission to New Zealand.8 The report acknowledged
some positive
advances, notably New Zealand’s support for the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),9
repeal of the FSA and the
constitutional review process, but also highlighted ongoing concerns
regarding the Treaty of Waitangi
(Treaty), domestic legal security for
Māori rights and Māori development. The Special Rapporteur’s
recommendations
to the New Zealand Government included that:
• efforts to secure Māori political participation at the national level, particularly in local governance, be “strengthened” and Māori be consulted on matters affecting them “in accordance with relevant international standards and traditional Māori decision-making procedures”;
• the Waitangi Tribunal receive sufficient funding, Māori be consulted on its future role and any decision to act against the Tribunal’s recommendations be accompanied by a written justification and accord with the principles of the Treaty and international human rights standards;
• every effort be made to involve all interested groups in Treaty settlement negotiations, a flexible position be taken during negotiations, Māori be consulted on means to address concerns regarding the negotiations process, and the decision not to return lands within Te Urewera National Park to Ngai Tuhoe be reconsidered;
• the principles of the Treaty and related internationally
protected human rights “be provided security within
the domestic legal
system”, at a minimum, safeguards similar to those under the Bill of
Rights Act 1990 for the Treaty be developed
and the provisions of the MCA Act be
implemented consistent with the principles of the Treaty and international
standards; and
• support for Māori Television continue, work with Māori
to assess the causes of the discrepancy in Māori
health conditions
continue, efforts to address the high incarceration rates among Māori be
redoubled, Whanau Ora receive ongoing
support and special attention be directed
at urban Māori when addressing Māori social and economic
disadvantage.10
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, New Zealand
responded favourably to the report, commenting that it
“is already acting
on many of his recommendations and will continue to draw on the report over
time.”11
B. Committee on the Rights of the Child
The CRC Committee provided its concluding observations on New Zealand’s combined third and fourth periodic reports under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in April 2011,12 recommending inter alia, that New Zealand:
• ensure its domestic legislation’s compliance with the CRC
“and that it supersedes any existing customary law,
including Māori
customary law;”
• take “urgent measures to address disparities in access to
services by Māori children and their families”,
strengthen
“its awareness-raising and other preventative activities against
discrimination” including, if necessary,
taking affirmative action for
the benefit of Māori children and take “all necessary measures to
ensure that cases of discrimination
against children in all sectors of society
are addressed effectively;”
• “intensify its efforts” to provide culturally
appropriate services to Māori “parents and legal guardians
in the
performance of their child-rearing responsibilities” and raise awareness
amongst Māori of the benefits of exclusive
breastfeeding for young
infants; and
• continue “efforts to improve the situation of children belonging to indigenous groups” and take into account the Special Rapporteur’s report on New Zealand.13
Responding to the Committee’s review, New Zealand reportedly
acknowledged that while most New Zealand children thrive, it
faces some
“real challenges” with regard to children’s
rights.14
V. Discussion of International Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples in International Fora
A notable emphasis was placed on Indigenous participation in decision- making
in various international fora in 2011.
A. UN General Assembly Third Committee
Before the UN GA’s Third Committee, New Zealand touched on a range of issues related to Indigenous peoples, including Indigenous participation within the UN. It identified the importance of ensuring “that there is meaningful indigenous participation in the planning and holding” of the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.15
New Zealand also referred to domestic developments and offered an
uncharacteristically frank acknowledgement of the challenges facing
Māori.
It expressed its appreciation for “the Special Rapporteur’s
identification of progress made as well as problems
still to be
addressed” in his report on New Zealand. It noted that in seeking
“to address our challenges” it had
“benefited from the
experiences of others,” such as shared during sessions of the PFII. It
reiterated New Zealand’s
goal to resolve outstanding historical
grievances under the Treaty by 2014 and identified the enactment of the MCA Act
as reflecting
“express consideration of international human rights
standards”. New Zealand concluded “[w]e harbour no illusions
about
the significant challenges that still remain regarding the situation of
Māori in New Zealand” but expressed a commitment
to meet those
challenges “through the spirit of discourse and partnership that form the
foundation of New Zealand.”16
B. UN Human Rights Council
The HRC placed a strong emphasis on Indigenous participation in its resolution on human rights and Indigenous peoples during its 18th session in September 2011.17 It highlighted, inter alia, the need for consultation with Indigenous representatives, and dialogue between the UN mechanisms relevant to Indigenous peoples, in order to determine the modalities for the 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, including regarding Indigenous peoples’ participation in the Conference.18 It also requested the UN Secretary-General, in cooperation with others, “to prepare a detailed document on the ways and means of promoting participation at the United Nations of recognized indigenous peoples’ representatives on issues affecting them” for the HRC’s 21st session.19
In 2011 for the first time the HRC held an interactive dialogue with the EMRIP and a panel discussion on Indigenous rights, which will both continue as annual events.20 The panel concerned the role of languages and culture in the promotion and protection of the well-being and identity of Indigenous peoples. During the panel New Zealand recognised “that more work is required to fully secure the revitalisation of the Māori language” and expressed its commitment to take “all reasonable steps” to support it.21
C. UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
During EMRIP’s fourth session in July 2011, New Zealand identified the
“distinct processes and institutions” it
had developed to realise
Māori participation in decision making.22 It reiterated that its
“engagement with the aspirational
elements of the Declaration” is
bound by “the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New
Zealand’s
legal system.”23 It suggested that EMRIP’s next
report focus on women and children or settlement of grievances,24
the latter
was perhaps an effort to highlight New Zealand’s settlement process, which
was praised by the Special Rapporteur.25
Ultimately, the HRC requested the
EMRIP’s next study to consider the role of languages and culture in the
promotion and protection
of the rights and identity of Indigenous
peoples.26
D. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
During the PFII’s 10th session New Zealand noted its pleasure at the
reference to the 2009 Central North Island Treaty of
Waitangi settlement in the
report of the International Expert Group Meeting on Indigenous Peoples and
Forests, citing the settlement
as an example of how “iwi can take a
significantly larger role than in the past in initiating and designing
settlement processes
and packages.”27 New Zealand also expressed its
support for “the rights of indigenous peoples having greater prominence
at the Human Rights Council,” praising the move to hold an annual
interactive dialogue with members of EMRIP and the HRC and
the HRC’s panel
on languages and culture.28
E. Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties
In October and November 2011 the Working Group on art 8(j) of the CBD, one of
the specialised working groups of relevance to Indigenous
peoples that guides
the work of the CBD’s bi-annual meetings of the Conference of the
Parties,29 held its seventh meeting.
The meeting launched a new component of
work on customary sustainable use of biodiversity; considered measures for
implementing the
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing adopted in 2010,
which New Zealand is yet to sign;30 and, began developing guidelines
for
domestic implementation of art 8(j) and the repatriation of information,
including cultural property.31 During the session New
Zealand commented on
mechanisms to promote the effective participation of Indigenous and local
communities in the work of the CBD
and the new work programme regarding
customary sustainable use of biodiversity.32
F. World Intellectual Property Office
WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)
held two sessions
during 2011 but failed to agree on an international legal instrument to protect
Indigenous peoples’ GR, TK
and TCEs. During the sessions New Zealand
commented on the draft articles concerning TK, including:
• supporting Canada’s suggestion for reinserting the objectives and principles in the text;33
• offering suggestions on the definition of TK;34
• proposing the simplification of the draft articles, such as through streamlining the text regarding the criteria for TK holders to prove eligibility for protection, and their consistency with the text on TCEs;35
• expressing support for Australia’s proposals that measures for the protection of TK be for the benefit of local communities as well as Indigenous peoples and that a practical study on domestic disclosure mechanisms currently in place be conducted;36
• promoting an approach to TK that identified certain activities that should be regulated, over the prescription of beneficiaries’ rights, “as it provided greater domestic flexibility” and different levels of protection for different categories of TK;37 and
• suggesting that governments should only have a role in the administration of TK rights where mandated by Indigenous peoples or local communities “and where the government in question considered that it was appropriate for it to have a role.”38
Late in 2011 WIPO renewed the IGC’s mandate until 2013 to expedite
agreement on an international legal instrument.39
VI. Events/Developments Contributing to the Development of
Customary International law and/or of Particular Relevance to New
Zealand
International human rights treaty monitoring bodies continued to develop
jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous during 2011, which
will be of
relevance to New Zealand when it is reviewed by the bodies. The bodies
expressed support for Indigenous peoples’
land, political and cultural
rights and international instruments that promote Indigenous peoples’
rights.
A. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee)
continues to be one of the most engaged of the international
human rights bodies
on Indigenous peoples’ issues and rights. In 2011 its recommendations
included that:
• measures to address discrimination against Indigenous peoples be implemented;40
• steps be taken to ensure Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women, are appropriately represented in political and public life, including through the implementation of special measures;41
• Indigenous peoples be appropriately consulted on matters affecting them;42
• Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands be protected;43
• threats and violence against Indigenous rights defenders be addressed;44
• Indigenous peoples’ equal access to justice be ensured;45
• states consider ratifying ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO Convention 169);46
• Indigenous peoples’ cultural rights be protected;47
• Rwanda recognize the Batwa as an Indigenous people;48 and
• Norway take measures to ensure the activities of transnational
corporations based in or under its jurisdiction do not negatively
impact the
rights of Indigenous peoples’ in territories outside
Norway.49
B. Committee on the Rights of the Child
The Committee on the Rights of the Child offered extensive comment on
Indigenous children’s rights in several reports in 2011,
including
urging:
• ratification of ILO Convention 169;50
• discrimination against Indigenous children to be addressed;51
• prior consultation with Indigenous peoples, including children, on projects likely to affect their rights;52
• states to ensure Indigenous children enjoy culturally appropriate access to health services (including information on sexual and reproductive health)53 and bilingual education;54
• improvement in the socio-economic situation of Indigenous peoples;55 and
• states to take into consideration the special requirements and
linguistic needs of Indigenous children in judicial and
administrative
decision- making processes.56
C. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended, inter
alia, that the Russian Federation and Argentina protect Indigenous
peoples’ rights to their lands, natural resources and intellectual
property, consult with Indigenous peoples on matters affecting
them and ensure
Indigenous children’s access to education.57
D. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women urged the
adoption of special measures to accelerate the participation
of Indigenous
women in public and political life and the improvement of the conditions of
Indigenous women, including in respect
of education and health.58
E. Human Rights Committee
In 2011 the Human Rights Committee recommended that Togo “take the
necessary steps to guarantee the recognition of minorities
and indigenous
peoples. It should also ensure that indigenous peoples are able to exercise
their right to free, prior and informed
consent.”59
F. Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review
States participating in the HRC’s UPR commented on Indigenous rights issues, including recommending that:
• states incorporate the UNDRIP into domestic law;60
• Nepal take more effective measures to increase the involvement of Indigenous peoples in the civil service, law enforcement agencies and local authorities;61
• Paraguay continue its efforts at providing Indigenous peoples’ access to bilingual education;62 and
• Venezuela expedite and systematise the process of demarcation
of Indigenous peoples’ lands.63
New Zealand commented on other states’ treatment of Indigenous peoples,
including offering recommendations regarding deaths
in custody in Australia,
which particularly impacts Indigenous Australians.64
Fleur Adcock*
Australian National University
1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (opened for signature 4 June 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) [“UNFCCC”].
2 Convention on Biological Diversity (opened for signature 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) [“CBD”].
3 Decision 1/CP.17 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session” UN Doc FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 (2012) at 2; Decision 1/CMP.7 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change “Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its seventh session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session” UN Doc FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1 (2012) at 2.
4 See for example, Forest Peoples Programme “Durban COP 17: UNFCCC fudges decision on climate finance and makes little progress on REDD+ safeguard implementation” (20 February 2012) http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/redd-and-related-initiatives/ news/2012/02/durban-cop-17-unfccc-fudges-decision-climate-financ>. For background on the UNFCCC see F Adcock and C Charters “Year in Review: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights under International Law” [2010] NZYbkIntLaw 10; (2010) 8 NZYIL 203.
5 Kaitiaki o te Takutai “Summary of Māori submissions on the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Bill 2010” (22 February 2011) <http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/fs220211.pdf> . For background on the MCA Act and FSA see Adcock and Charters, ibid.
6 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tenei: Te Taumata Tuarua Volumes 1 and 2 (2011).
7 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Report of the 17th Session Geneva 3 - 7 May 2010” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/16/8 (2010) at [14].
8 J Anaya “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, Addendum: The situation of Māori people in New Zealand” UN Doc A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 (2011).
9 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples GA Res 61/295, A/RES/61/295 (2007).
10 Ibid, at [66]-[85].
11 D Higgie “18th Session of the Human Rights Council, Statement of Special Rapporteur and Interactive Dialogue, Delegations of countries concerned, New Zealand Government” (press release, 21 September 2011).
12 Committee on the Rights of the Child Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention: Concluding observations: New Zealand UN Doc CRC/C/NZL/CO/3-4 (11 April 2011).
13 Ibid at [11a], [24]-[25], [32], [37], [39], [40]-[41], [45] and [58].
14 Michelle Duff “UN rebukes New Zealand for child poverty” (8 February 2011) <http://www. stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4627954/UN-rebukes-New-Zealand-for-child-poverty> .
15 B Cavanagh “UNGA Third Committee: Item 66 Indigenous Peoples” (press release, 17 October 2011). It also strongly supported commitments “to intensify efforts to address violence against women and girls, including those from indigenous communities” who are “more susceptible to violence.” Rona Ambrose “Statement on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand: Advancement of Women” (press release, 11 October 2011).
16 Bernadette Cavanagh “UNGA Third Committee: Item 66 Indigenous Peoples” (press release, 17 October 2011). Similar comments regarding the Special Rapporteur’s report were made elsewhere. See for example, J McLay “UN General Assembly – Report of the United Nations Human Rights Council” (press release, 2 November 2011); New Zealand delegate “Statement by New Zealand EMRIP 4 – Item 4” ( July 2011) <http://www.docip.org/gsdl/ collect/cendocdo/index/assoc/HASH26c3/effac83e.dir/EM11newzealand091.pdf>
17 UN Human Rights Council Resolution 18/8 “Human rights and indigenous peoples” UN Doc A/HRC/Res/18/8.
18 Ibid, [11]-[12].
19 Ibid, [13].
20 UN Human Rights Council Resolution 18/8, above n 17.
21 Lucy Richardson “Panel Discussion on the Role of Languages and Culture in the Promotion and Protection of the Well-Being and Identity of Indigenous People” (press release, 20 September 2011).
22 New Zealand delegate “Statement by New Zealand EMRIP 4 – Agenda Item 4” ( July 2011) <http://www.docip.org/gsdl/collect/cendocdo/index/assoc/HASH26c3/effac83e.dir/ EM11newzealand091.pdf> .
23 New Zealand delegate “Statement by New Zealand EMRIP 4: Agenda Item 5” (July 2011) <http:// w w w.docip.org/gsdl/collect/cendocdo/index/assoc/H ASHcdd0.dir/EM11newzealand157. pdf> .
24 New Zealand delegate “Statement by New Zealand EMRIP 4 – Agenda Item 6” ( July 2011) (on file with author).
25 The Special Rapporteur asserted that “[t]he Treaty settlement process in New Zealand, despite evident shortcomings, is one of the most important examples in the world of an effort to address historical and ongoing grievances of indigenous peoples ...”: James Anaya “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, Addendum: The situation of Māori people in New Zealand” UN Doc A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 (2011) at 2.
26 UN Human Rights Council Resolution 18/8, above n 17, at [9].
27 Kim Ngarimu “New Zealand Statement on Indigenous Peoples and Forests” (press release, 17 May 2011).
28 Kim Ngarimu “New Zealand Statement for the dialogue with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (press release, 19 May 2011).
29 For further discussion see C Charters “Year in Review: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights under International Law” (2008) 6 NZYIL 307-308.
30 Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat “Status of Signature, and ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” <http://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/> . For further discussion on the CBD see Adcock and Charters, above n 4.
31 UN Environment Programme (“UNEP”) “Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity” UNEP Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/11/7 (2011).
32 Ibid, at [36] and [80].
33 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Report of the 19th Session Geneva 18-22 July 2011” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/19/12 (2012) at [177].
34 Ibid, at [179], [217] and [266].
35 World Intellectual Property Office Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore “Report of the 18th Session Geneva 9-13 May 2011” WIPO Doc WIPO/GRTKF/IC/18/11 (2011) at [50], [153].
36 Ibid, at [84], [210] and [350]. New Zealand also supported Australia’s proposal concerning the test for the formulation of domestic exceptions to protection of TK.
37 Ibid, at [118].
38 Ibid, at [178].
39 Assemblies of Member States of WIPO “Matters Concerning the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: Agenda Item 13 Decision” (26 September-5 October 2011) <http://www.wipo.int/ export/sites/www/tk/en/documents/pdf/decision_assemblies_2011.pdf> .
40 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: PAR AGUAY” UN Doc CERD/C/PRY/CO/1-3 (2011) at [12] and [20] [“CERD: Paraguay”]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: BOLIVIA” UN Doc CERD/C/ BOL/CO/17-20 (2011) at [15] and [17] [“CERD: Bolivia”]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: URUGUAY” UN Doc CERD/C/URY/CO/16-20 (2011) at [10], [11] and [18]-[19] [“CERD: Uruguay”].
41 CERD: Bolivia, ibid, at [13]; CERD: Uruguay, ibid, at [17].
42 CERD: Paraguay, above n 40, at [14] and [21]; CERD: Bolivia, above n 40, at [20].
43 CERD: Paraguay, above n 40, at [15] and [17].
44 CERD: Bolivia, above n 40, at [17].
45 CERD: Bolivia, above n 40, at [22]; CERD: Uruguay, above n 40, at [16].
46 CERD: Uruguay, above n 40, at [20]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: UKR AINE” UN Doc CERD/C/UKR/CO/19-21 (2011) at [16] [“CERD: Ukraine”]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: RWANDA” UN Doc CERD/C/RWA/CO/13-17 (2011) at [22] [“CERD: Rwanda”].
47 CERD: Paraguay, above n 40, at [19]; CERD: Ukraine, ibid, at [16].
48 CERD: Rwanda, above n 46, at [11].
49 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: NORWAY” UN Doc CERD/C/NOR/CO/19-20 (2011) at [17].
50 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: PANAMA” UN Doc CRC/C/PAN/CO/3 (2011) at [81] [“CRC: Panama”]; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: FINLAND” UN Doc CRC/C/ FIN/CO/4 (2011) at [64] [“CRC: Finland”].
51 CRC: Panama, ibid. at [8], [34]; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: DENMARK” UN Doc CRC/C/DNK/CO/4 (2011) at [67], [68]; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: COSTA RICA” UN Doc CRC/C/CRI/CO/4 (2011) at [8] and [30] [“CRC: Costa Rica”] .
52 CRC: Panama, above n 50, at [27], [28]; CRC: Costa Rica, ibid, at [24].
53 CRC: Panama, above n 50, at [54]-[59]; CRC: Costa Rica, above n 51, at [35], [36] and [58]; CRC: Finland, above n 50, at [63]-[64].
54 CRC: Panama, above n 50, at [62]-[63]; CRC: Costa Rica, above n 51, at [67]-[70]; CRC: Finland, above n 50.
55 CRC: Costa Rica, above n 51, at [30].
56 CRC: Panama, above n 50, at [38]; CRC: Costa Rica, above n 51, at [33]-[34].
57 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: RUSSIAN FEDER ATION” UN Doc E/C.12/RUS/CO/5 (2011) at [7], [28], [32] and [34]; United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: ARGENTINA” UN Doc E/C.12/ARG/CO/3 (2011) at [8]-[10], [21] and [24]-[25].
58 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: COSTA RICA” UN Doc CEDAW/C/CRI/CO/5-6 (2011) at [24], [25(b)] and [38]-[39]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: NEPAL” UN Doc CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/4-5 (2011) at [23]-[24], [28]-[29] and [39]-[40]; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: PAR AGUAY” UN Doc CEDAW/C/PRY/CO/6 (2011) at [12]-[13], [26]-[27] and [32]-[35].
59 United Nations Human Rights Committee “Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: TOGO” UN Doc CCPR/C/TGO/CO/4 (2011) at [22].
60 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: AUSTR ALIA” UN Doc A/HRC/17/10 (2011) [86.24]; Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: MYANMAR” UN Doc A/HRC/17/9 (2011) at [106.35]; Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: DENMARK” UN Doc A/HRC/18/4 (2011) at [106.47].
61 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: NEPAL” UN Doc A/HRC/17/5 (2011) at [107.28].
62 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: PAR AGUAY” UN Doc A/HRC/17/18 (2011) at [84.44].
63 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: VENEZUELA”
UN Doc A/HRC/19/12 (2011) at
[94.68].
64 Human Rights Council “Universal Periodic Review: AUSTR ALIA” UN Doc A/HRC/17/10 (2011) at [86.92].
* Fleur Adcock, Ngati Mutunga and English, PhD scholar, Australian National University.
Many thanks to Claire Charters for her helpful comments. The views expressed here are the author’s own, as are any errors and omissions.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2011/12.html