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) 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.