The literature on international indigenous rights has two distinct approaches: the decolonization model and the human rights model. This first view places indigenous rights within the historic sovereignty of indigenous populations and emphasizes the need to respect their right to self-determination, self-government, land and resources, historical redress, and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). By contrast, the second model focuses on indigenous peoples' rights to culture, language, tradition, non-discrimination, and other socio-economic rights. These two approaches underscore the tension between indigenous populations of the North (namely indigenous peoples of the former British colonies, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, also known as the ‘CANZUS states’) and the South (that is, indigenous peoples of Latin America, Asia, and Africa) in the negotiation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) with the North advocating the former approach and the South supporting the latter. It is often thought that the final draft of the UNDRIP reflects the human rights model, an approach favoured by states which threatened the pursuit of the indigenous North for greater self-determination and self-governance.
As a veteran indigenous rights advocate of Māori descent, Andrew (Anaru) Erueti disagrees with the above understanding of the international indigenous rights movement. In his book, Erueti eloquently recounts the history and politics of the negotiations leading up to the adoption of UNDRIP. He demonstrates that the prevailing narrative on the subject is neither accurate nor conducive to advancing indigenous peoples’ rights. He explains that the UNDRIP does not represent a complete retreat of the decolonization model, nor are the two models necessarily mutually exclusive since indigenous communities need rights to culture and tradition to sustain claims for self-determination. These were important points to clarify because how one interprets the Declaration's rights is influenced by how one understands the historical context.
Erueti proposes interpreting UNDRIP using a mixed-model approach, incorporating the human rights and decolonization models. In this interpretative method, UNDRIP provisions are taken to embrace dual meanings that reflect both models. Not only does this approach better reflect the travaux préparatoires of the Declaration, but it also gives indigenous communities greater leverage to negotiate their terms of coexistence with the state. In his view, this perspective enhances the legitimacy of the Declaration since it duly recognizes indigenous populations as proper subjects of international law prior to their colonization.
Overall, Erueti's monograph provides much-needed clarity to this highly contentious area of international law. Furthermore, his insights and attention to detail will benefit anyone interested in the topic, which he debates passionately. In light of contemporary events unfolding around the world, such as the upcoming Australian referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the book makes a particularly timely contribution to the available literature.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
