The 23rd session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII23) occurred at the UN headquarters office in New York from 15 – 16 April 2024. The Forum highlighted the theme ‘Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-determination in the Context of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Emphasizing the Voices of Indigenous Youth.’
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) is the UN’s central coordinating body for matters relating to the concerns and rights of Indigenous peoples worldwide. As the UN functional body on Indigenous peoples matters, the PFII has six mandates: economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health, and human rights.
The Permanent Forum aims to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Economic and Social Council and various programs, funds, and agencies of the UN system through the Council, raise awareness, and promote the integration and coordination of activities related to Indigenous peoples within the UN system. It also prepares and disseminates information on Indigenous issues.
Today, there are more than 370 million Indigenous people in some 70 countries. They are called differently, for instance, native, original, aboriginal people, tribal community, or the First Nation.
Rights to Self-determination Grounded in International Law
Self-determination is a human right. All people have the right to self-determination. Self-determination, by definition, means people have choices to determine how their lives are governed, develop the ways to live, and participate in decisions that affect their lives. This choice must be respected and recognized formally in the state’s constitution and law. Self-determination is based on five principles: freedom, authority, support, responsibility, and confirmation.
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. They have the right and authority to freely choose their education, care for their health, and take control of their lands, territory, and resources.
The right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples is grounded in the international laws and covenants. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognize the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination. “All peoples have the right to self-determination recognize. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development” (ICCPR and ICESCR article 1 and UNDRIP article 3). UNDRIP Article 4 particularly refers to exercising Indigenous people’s rights to self-determination concerning internal and local affairs. It also promotes ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Lands, Territories, and Resources
Self-governance and control over the land, territories, and resources may be the most important way to exercise and implement the Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. From the beginning of the International Indigenous movement in the 1970s, Indigenous peoples have consistently stressed the significance of lands, territories, and natural resources for their cultural, physical, and spiritual survival according to their cosmos world views.
Elsa Stamatopoulou, a professor at Columbia University in the United States, captured this issue as she presented the Indigenous people’s rights to land, territory, and resources at a discussion during the 23rd Permanent Forum session. In a short overview, she highlighted a typology of the problems Indigenous peoples have faced today in practicing their right to self-determination concerning governing their customary land, territories, and resources. She put it in nine categories. First, land grabbing by companies, individuals, or the state itself, or state has encouraged and facilitated this by explicit laws and policies.
Second, prohibit Indigenous using lands and waters for subsistence economic activities, such as hunting and fishing. Third, pollution that erodes Indigenous peoples’ lands and health, including nuclear and other toxic dumping. Fourth, the militarization of indigenous peoples’ lands, controlling the lands, eroding indigenous peoples’ authority, and threatening them.
Fifth, the non-recognition of collective ownership of land and privatization of land. This makes selling land easier and undermines community survival. Sixth, build mega projects such as dams, artificial lakes, mining, and logging. Seventh, outright settlement of indigenous lands by the state, bringing in settlers and promoting change in the demographic composition of the area.
Eight, the declaration of indigenous areas as nature conservation areas or as human cultural heritage, leading to the clearing of the areas from the Indigenous peoples’ inhabitation and activities. Nineth, the expansion of so-called biofuels or ethanol cultivation, such as oil palm in Asia and corn or sugarcane in the Americas.
These problems have been confirmed, and they became so glowing as I listened to stories of Indigenous people during the Permanent Forum—from Indians in Mexico and Paraguay to Amazon in Brazil, from West Papuans in Indonesia in the Asia-Pacific to Masai people in Tanzania and Kenya, in Africa.
These problems have serious impacts on indigenous peoples’ lives, such as massive uprooting and displacement of indigenous peoples, conflict and loss of life, rape of women and girls, and loss of the cultural and spiritual base of the indigenous peoples. It certainly threatens their survival as specific cultures and groups. It is a threat of physical and cultural extinction, loss of health remedies, overall deterioration of health, impoverishment, and further materialization.
Can the state legitimately take land from indigenous peoples? According to Elsa, it can if it meets three criteria. First, it must be done within the legal system. The conditions for expropriation are established by law. Second is a legitimate aim, which the state has to prove why it wants to take. And finally, proportionality. This means that what the landowner loses should be proportional to what the public interest requires. The last measure of proportionality can rarely apply to Indigenous communities, such as Indian communities. Their ancestral lands are not for sale because they have profound material, spiritual, and cultural significance for survival.
The enjoyment of the right to self-determination is still a long way off for many Indigenous communities and First Nations around the world, even though it has been recognized in international law for decades.
Paul Rahmat SVD, VIVAT Team, New York
