Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Legal Framework and Indigenous Claims in Africa

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Indigenousness in Africa

  • 572 Accesses

Abstract

The previous developments suggested, based on available documentation, that claimant indigenous groups in Africa first gained international recognition before using it as a token in their battle for domestic recognition. International recognition of specific groups as constitutive of indigenous peoples in Africa results from a coalescence of normative, institutional and socio-political dynamics intervening both domestically and globally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN Doc. A/RES/61/295, 2 October 2007 (hereafter, UN Indigenous Rights Declaration).

  2. 2.

    For a relevant analysis, see Eide 2006, pp. 155–212. For a listing of most instruments of relevance to indigenous peoples, see http://www.u-bourgogne.fr/peuples-autochtones/ppxinstru.html. Accessed 1 October 2007.

  3. 3.

    Anaya 2004, p. 49.

  4. 4.

    On this particular issue, see Buchanan 1993.

  5. 5.

    The African Group of Experts 2007, para 1.2, claimed that the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration did not create new rights but rather reaffirmed ‘rights that are already recognized by virtually all African constitutions and the African Charter’.

  6. 6.

    Kingsbury 2001, pp. 69 et seq.

  7. 7.

    Ibid.

  8. 8.

    For the reasons put forward by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United States in voting against the UN Declaration, see ‘General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, UN Doc. GA/10612, 13 September 2007.

  9. 9.

    Kingsbury 2001, p. 71.

  10. 10.

    See Thornberry 2002, pp. 115 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Relevant international instruments include: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 993 UNTS 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 302; Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), 660 UNTS 195; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1249 UNTS 13; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1465 UNTS 85; Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1577 UNTS 3; International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, GA Res. 45/158, UN Doc. A/45/49 (1990); International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, GA Res. 61/106, UN Doc. A/61/49 (2006). Also relevant is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 (1948), p. 71.

  12. 12.

    Meijknecht 2001, pp. 129–131; Thornberry 2002, pp. 116 et seq.

  13. 13.

    See also Kingsbury 2001, pp. 71–78.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 78.

  15. 15.

    See http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en. Accessed 10 November 2009.

  16. 16.

    See Thornberry 2002, p. 117.

  17. 17.

    As illustration, see CERD 2006b, para 17, where the country claims in the report that it has over 450 ethnic groups; CERD 2005, para 32, where the report refers to the dual categorization of Botswana’s ethnic groups into ‘principal tribes’ (Tswana speaking) which include Bakgatla, Bakwena, Balete, Bangwato, Barolong, Batawana, Batlokwa and Bangwaketse, and ‘minority tribes’ such as Babirwa, Bakalaka, Bakgalagadi, Basarwa, Basubiya, Batswapong, Wayeyi, Hambukushu, Ovabenderu and OvaHerero. See also CERD 2002, para 37.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., CERD 2000, para 34, clearly stating that ‘Algerian law forbids population censuses based on ethnic, religious or linguistic criteria’. See also CERD 2004, paras 2–3.

  19. 19.

    Makoloo 2005, pp. 11–13. See also Sect. 3.5.2.1.

  20. 20.

    CERD 2006a, para 11.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    See, for instance, UN Doc. A/56/18 (Supp), para 30 (Algeria), para 286 (Egypt); Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc. A/57/18 (Supp), para 299 (on Botswana), para 441 (on Senegal). See also CERD 2007, para 9.

  23. 23.

    Emphasis added.

  24. 24.

    CRC 1994, paras 4 and 5(h)(iv).

  25. 25.

    CRC, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention, Second Periodic Reports by Kenya (CRC/C/KEN/2, 4 July 2006, paras 458–466); Rwanda (CRC/C/70Add.22, 8 October 2003, para 366; Uganda (CRC/C/65/Add.33, 5 November 2004, which makes no comments about Art. 30); and the initial report by Republic of Congo (CRC/C/COG/1, 20 February 2006, silent as well on Art. 30).

  26. 26.

    UN Doc. CRC/C/KEN/2, Introduction. Note that the (estimated) of ethnic groups constantly changes. It should be noted that the number of ethnic groups in the country is not identical in all relevant studies.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para 461.

  28. 28.

    See, e.g., ACHPR, IWGIA 2006, pp. 15–16, and A/HRC/4/32/Add.3, para 5.

  29. 29.

    See CRC, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Kenya (CRC/C/KEN/CO/2, 19 June 2007, paras 69–70); Republic of Congo (CRC/C/COG/CO/1, 20 October 2006, paras 88–89); Uganda (CRC/C/UGA/CO/2, 23 November 2005, paras 81–82); and Rwanda (CRC/C/15/Add.234, 1 July 2004, paras 75–76).

  30. 30.

    Art. 27 ICCPR reads: ‘In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language’.

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Anaya 2004, pp. 97–184; Meijknecht 2001, pp. 121–210; Thornberry 2002, pp. 116–241; Alston 2001; Kymlicka 2001, pp. 120–132.

  32. 32.

    See mainly Chaps. 2 and 3.

  33. 33.

    Referred to in Chap. 2.

  34. 34.

    J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, HRC, paras 4–6.

  35. 35.

    The facts of the case are partially covered in Chap. 3 (Sect. 3.4.2.2).

  36. 36.

    J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, HRC, paras 2.1, 2.2.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., paras 2.2, 2.3.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 2.4.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para 1.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 3.1.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 10.6 (emphasis added).

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. For a previous analysis on this case, see Sect. 3.4.2.2.

  46. 46.

    J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, HRC, paras 10.10, 11.

  47. 47.

    See Thornberry 2002, pp. 133–134 (referring to dissenting opinions by Abdelfattah Amor, Nisuke Ando, P.N. Bhagwati, Lord Colville and Maxwell Yalden).

  48. 48.

    As of October 2007.

  49. 49.

    See generally Gilbert 2007b.

  50. 50.

    Oló Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea, Communication No. 468/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991 (1993).

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para 3.1.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 6.2.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 9.5.

  54. 54.

    Besides Arts. 26 and 27, the complaint claimed violations of Arts. 6(1), 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20(2) and 25 ICCPR.

  55. 55.

    Anaya 2004, p 97.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., pp. 110–115; Kingsbury 2001, pp. 87 et seq.

  57. 57.

    The relevant provision reads: ‘The use of the term ‘peoples’ in this Convention shall not be construed as having any implications as regards the rights which may attach to the term under international law’.

  58. 58.

    As illustrated by Arts. 1(2) and 55 of GA Res. 1514 (XV), para 2; common Art. 1 ICCPR and ICESCR; Art. 20 African Charter; or Art. 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, among many other relevant provisions/instruments.

  59. 59.

    To quote Summers 2007, p. 83.

  60. 60.

    Crawford 2001, p. 38.

  61. 61.

    Oloka-Onyango 1999, p. 167.

  62. 62.

    Anaya 2004, p. 113.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., pp. 59–61; Niezen 2003, pp. 115 et seq.

  64. 64.

    Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, 90, para 29. See also Wiessner 1999, p. 116.

  65. 65.

    Borrowed from the full title of the cited book by Summers 2007. See also the various articles compiled in McCorquodale 2000.

  66. 66.

    Among many other sources, one may mention Brölmann et al. 1993, Alston 2001, Summers 2007, McCorquodale 2000, Hannikainen 1998, pp. 79–95.

  67. 67.

    For more, see Cristescu 1981, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination on Protection of Minorities.

  68. 68.

    Koskenniemi 1994, p. 243.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., pp. 245 et seq.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., p. 246.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p. 251.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 246–248.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., p. 250.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., pp. 260 et seq. See generally Summers 2007.

  75. 75.

    Koskenniemi 1994, p. 260.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., p. 259.

  77. 77.

    See Huff 2005, p. 314, Skurbaty 2000, pp. 195–270.

  78. 78.

    Feldman 2001, pp. 163–166.

  79. 79.

    ACHPR, Advisory Opinion of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 41st Sess., May 2007, para 22 (hereafter, ACHPR Advisory Opinion).

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 24. See also ACHPR, IWGIA 2005, p. 75.

  81. 81.

    Anaya 2004, p. 109.

  82. 82.

    See Reference re Secession of Quebec from Canada, [1998] 2 SCR 217, extensively discussed in Crawford 2001, pp. 47–63.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, 13 September 2007, p. 11.

  85. 85.

    This clearly transpires from a reading of the entire GA Res. 1514 (XV). In African regional institutions for instance, this understanding of self-determination is exemplified by, among others, OAU Resolution on Decolonization by the First Conference of Independent African Heads of State and Government, Addis Ababa/Ethiopia, 22–25 May 1963, Doc. CIAS/Plen.2/Rev.2, para 5, which reaffirmed the ‘inalienable right of the people of South-West Africa to self-determination and independence’; or in preambular para 2 of the OAU Resolution on Territories under Portuguese Domination, Cairo/UAR, 17–21 July 1964, AHG/Res. 9 (I).

  86. 86.

    For an extensive analysis on self-determination, see Summers 2007, pp. 192–203.

  87. 87.

    In the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 554–651, para 25, the ICJ commented that the decision by African states to uphold colonial boundaries was the ‘wisest course, to preserve what has been achieved by people who have struggled for their independence, and to avoid a disruption which would deprive the continent of the gains achieved by much sacrifice’.

  88. 88.

    On the pre colonial Kingdom of Kongo, see Thornton 2001, Broadhead 1979, Hochschild 1999, pp. 6–18.

  89. 89.

    See Udombana 2003, pp. 90–91.

  90. 90.

    This idea was dear to first Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah but also other leaders of newly independent African countries such as Tanganyika’s (now Tanzania) Julius Nyerere (see Nyerere 1963 and Guinea’s Sékou Touré. On this, see Kamanu 1974, pp. 362–365. On formal bid for establishment of such an institution, see OAU Resolution on a Union Government of Africa, AHSG/UAR, 1st Ord. Sess., Cairo, 17–21 July 1964, AHG/Res. 10 (I).

  91. 91.

    As in the title of the article by Klabbers and Lefeber 1993.

  92. 92.

    Franck 1993, p. 8. See also Tierney 2002, for a critical analysis of Franck’s theories on self-determination.

  93. 93.

    To use the analytical framework in Koskenniemi 1994, pp. 243 et seq.

  94. 94.

    Brownlie 1979, p. 9.

  95. 95.

    See generally McCorquodale 1994.

  96. 96.

    See Jackson and Rosberg 1982. The author remarked that ‘ethnic divisions have been a major factor contributing to extreme disorder or civil war in the following countries: Sudan (1956–1972); Rwanda (1959–1964); Zaire (1960–1965; 1977–1978); Ethiopia (1962–1982); Zanzibar (1964); Burundi (1966–1972); Chad (1966–1982); Uganda (1966; 1978–1982); Nigeria (1967–1970); and Angola (1975–1982)’. The list is far longer today than this 1982 assessment.

  97. 97.

    Brownlie 1979, pp. 9 et seq.

  98. 98.

    Among other explorations of these two conflicts, see Islam 1985, Kamanu 1974, pp. 364 et seq.

  99. 99.

    Summers 2007, pp. 334–335.

  100. 100.

    See Crowley 1963, pp. 69–71, Lemarchand 1962.

  101. 101.

    On the Biafra secession, see Ijalaye 1971, pp. 553–554. See also Okoronkwo, ‘Self-Determination’, 63–115; See similar figures in Okoronkwo 2002–2003, p. 109. For external involvements in these conflicts, see Bach 1980, Post 1968.

  102. 102.

    Nixon 1972, p. 480.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique and São Tome and Principe gained independence between 1974 and 1975. See Miller 1975, for some early discussion of the independence process.

  105. 105.

    See Matthews 1989–1990.

  106. 106.

    See Klabbers and Lefeber 1993, pp. 45 et seq), Wallace-Bruce 1985.

  107. 107.

    See Tesfagiorgis 1987, pp. 105 et seq.

  108. 108.

    See Carroll and Rajagopal 1992–1993, Christopher 1997.

  109. 109.

    See Lloyd 1994–1995.

  110. 110.

    See Woocher 2000.

  111. 111.

    See Lyle 2005.

  112. 112.

    Lewis 1989.

  113. 113.

    See HRC 25 April 2000, para 20.

  114. 114.

    This can be seen in ‘Biafra Government in Exile: A Declaration’, Press Club, Washington, 28 August 2007, http://www.biafraland.com/BGIE/Biafra%20Government%20in%20Exile%20Declaration%20Press%20Club%20082807.htm, and more generally at http://www.biafraland.com. Both accessed 10 January 2008.

  115. 115.

    On Ogoni activism, see Welch 1995, Ezetah 1996–1997.

  116. 116.

    See generally Clifford 2002, Coomans 2003.

  117. 117.

    See International Crisis Group (ICG) 2006.

  118. 118.

    ACHPR, Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, Communication No. 75/92 (1995), para 2 (discussed later).

  119. 119.

    Mwembu 1999.

  120. 120.

    Carroll and Rajagopal 1992–1993, p. 654.

  121. 121.

    Ramlogan 1993–1994, pp. 213 et seq.

  122. 122.

    See South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa, Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports 1966, pp. 10, 22; see also Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, paras 52 et seq.

  123. 123.

    Western Sahara, paras 48, 62.4 et seq. See also Hanauer 1995.

  124. 124.

    Frontier Dispute, para 25.

  125. 125.

    For this case, see Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, pp. 399 et seq. See also Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 25 March 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, pp. 31–41.

  126. 126.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, p. 416, para 225. See also Konings 2005, p. 289.

  127. 127.

    Konings 2005, p. 292.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., p. 277.

  129. 129.

    For extensive analyses of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims and Boundary Commissions, see Shaw 2007, and Gray 2006.

  130. 130.

    Gray 2006, p. 702.

  131. 131.

    See Jibril 2003–2004.

  132. 132.

    Brietzke 1995, p. 72.

  133. 133.

    See generally Bojosi 2006, pp. 394 et seq.

  134. 134.

    Osaghae 2005, p. 91, notes that the 1990s saw the resurgence of ‘demands for power-sharing, minority rights, self-determination, decentralization, and resource redistribution, as well as the return of the federalism debate’.

  135. 135.

    Corntassel and Primeau 1995, pp. 347 et seq.

  136. 136.

    At issue here are the same questions as those raised in applying indigenous rights law in, among others, Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand or Nordic countries, when it comes to determining who should be included into or excluded from the community and who should be covered by indigenous rights. For an extensive, general analysis, see Kingsbury 2001, pp. 69–110.

  137. 137.

    Wilson 1995–1996 extensively explores, among others, claims for self-determination of the Zulus in South Africa.

  138. 138.

    See Aalen 2006. See also Shivakumar 2004, Okafor 2000, pp. 503–528.

  139. 139.

    See Mutua 1994–1995.

  140. 140.

    See Art. 5 UN Indigenous Rights Declaration.

  141. 141.

    See Castellino 2005, pp. 89 et seq. See also Anaya 2004, pp. 15 et seq.

  142. 142.

    Castellino 2005, pp. 99 et seq.

  143. 143.

    Ibid., pp. 97–107. See also the preceding section on self-determination for further discussions on these cases.

  144. 144.

    Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1, denouncing the ‘unjust and discriminatory’ nature of early doctrine on appropriation of lands occupied by indigenous groups considered as vacant or terra nullius. For further comments, see Anaya 2004, pp. 197–199.

  145. 145.

    Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, which recognized native title of the two claimant communities (Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en), while calling for negotiated solutions between the government and other ‘first nations’ faced with similar problems. For more on the case, see Borrows 2001, pp. 190–206.

  146. 146.

    The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August, 2001, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 79 (2001).

  147. 147.

    See Erueti 2006, Anaya 2005.

  148. 148.

    Lovelace v. Canada; Kitok v. Sweden; Länsman et al. v. Finland; Ominayak v. Canada, and others, referred to previously. See also Thornberry 2002, pp. 163–167.

  149. 149.

    ACHPR, IWGIA 2005, pp. 21–33.

  150. 150.

    Ibid. See also Barume 2000, pp. 72 et seq, Hitchcock 1996, pp. 13 et seq, Madsen 2000, pp. 14 et seq, Lewis and Knight 1995, pp. 13 et seq.

  151. 151.

    See Arts. 13–19 ILO Convention No. 169.

  152. 152.

    Art. 25 is completed by Art. 26 elaborating on land and territorial rights of indigenous people.

  153. 153.

    For instance, see Sjaastad and Bromley 1997.

  154. 154.

    Tevoedjre 1969.

  155. 155.

    See ILO Mission Statement at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/indigenous/. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  156. 156.

    See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/indigenous. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  157. 157.

    Situation as of August 2009. For this interpretation, see Kuppe and Potz 2005, pp. 55–91, at p. 72 note 82.

  158. 158.

    See Anaya 2004, p. 58, Niezen 2003, p. 38, Rodriguez-Piñero 2005, pp. 173 et seq. On Convention No. 169, see Swepston 1990, pp. 677–714.

  159. 159.

    See also Barume 2005, Tchoumba 2005, ILO 1999, Bee et al. 2002, Crawhall 1999, ILO, Tamaynut 2003, Les Principaux Thèmes Illustres au Moyen de Bandes Dessinées, Training Materials—Convention No. 169, http://staging2.ilo.org/public/english/standards/egalite/itpp/activity/drc/index.htm. Accessed 30 January 2008. See also ILO 2003, p. 85.

  160. 160.

    ‘The Effect of Convention No. 169 so far’, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/indigenous/standard/super2.htm. Accessed 16 January 2008.

  161. 161.

    See Swepston 2005, pp. 114–126.

  162. 162.

    ILO 2005, p. 5.

  163. 163.

    Ibid.

  164. 164.

    See Burger 1996–1997, Anaya 2004, pp. 63–64.

  165. 165.

    UN 2007a.

  166. 166.

    UN 2007b.

  167. 167.

    UN 2007c.

  168. 168.

    On the vote and minutes discussions surrounding the adoption of the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration, see UN Docs. A/61/PV.107 and A/61/PV.108, 13 September 2007.

  169. 169.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, p. 19.

  170. 170.

    These are: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine.

  171. 171.

    Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.

  172. 172.

    Van Genugten 2008, p. 1.

  173. 173.

    See Gilbert 2007a, pp. 215 et seq.

  174. 174.

    See UN Docs. A/61/PV.107 and A/61/PV.108, for a complete overview of statements preceding and following the vote in the (UN)GA passing Res. 61/295 on the UN Indigenous Rights Declaration.

  175. 175.

    For justifications of votes in favour or against the Declaration, see ‘Plenary General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, UN Doc. GA/10612, 13 September 2007.

  176. 176.

    UN Docs. A/61/PV.107 and A/61/PV.108 reveal that some votes in favour of the text (see India, Namibia, etc.) were—as arguably pointed out by the US delegation—on different interpretations of the text.

  177. 177.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, p. 11.

  178. 178.

    Ibid.

  179. 179.

    Ibid.

  180. 180.

    Ibid., p. 13. See also pp. 12–13, on other grounds for Canadian negative vote.

  181. 181.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, p. 15.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., p. 14.

  183. 183.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.108, p. 2.

  184. 184.

    Ibid., p. 3. Similarly, see the statement by a representative of Egypt, UN Doc. A/61/PV.108, p. 7. Benin’s intervention was much more ambiguous in that the delegation voted in favour of the text with the understanding that the latter was ‘to be implemented on an interim basis while improvements are introduced so that it can be endorsed by all delegations’, UN Doc. A/61/PV.107, p. 16.

  185. 185.

    UN Doc. A/61/PV.108, p. 6.

  186. 186.

    Hereafter, the African Group.

  187. 187.

    Third Committee, ‘Namibia: Amendments to Draft Resolution A/C.3/61/L.18/Rev.1’, UN Doc. A/C.3/61/L.57/Rev.1, para 2.

  188. 188.

    (UN)GA, ‘Third Committee Approves Draft Resolution on Right to Development’, UN Doc. GA/SHC/3878, 28 November 2006, p. 5.

  189. 189.

    For the resolution and annexed text of the Declaration, see HRC Res. 1/2, Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to Elaborate a Draft Declaration in Accordance with para 5 of the General Assembly Resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/1/2, 13 November 2006.

  190. 190.

    Eide 2006, p. 193.

  191. 191.

    Ibid. See also UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/1/2.

  192. 192.

    Eide 2006, p. 194.

  193. 193.

    (UN)GA, ‘Third Committee, Summary of Record of the 53rd Meeting’, UN Doc. A/C.3/61/SR.53, 28 November 2006, paras 22 et seq.

  194. 194.

    See ‘Draft Aide Memoire of the African Group on the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, New York, 9 November 2006, http://www.iwgia.org/graphics/Synkron-Library/Documents/InternationalProcesses/DraftDeclaration/AfricanGroupAideMemoireOnDeclaration.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2008.

  195. 195.

    AU, Assembly/AU/Dec.141 (VIII).

  196. 196.

    Ibid., para 6.

  197. 197.

    Ibid. The relevant work of the ACHPR and the OAU/AU is analysed in the following chapter.

  198. 198.

    Ibid., para 8.

  199. 199.

    The various reactions to the African countries’ ‘Draft Aide-Memoire’ and Assembly Decision addressed more questions of constitutionalism than practicability.

  200. 200.

    Correspondences, statements and communiqués by these various actors are available at http://www.iwgia.org/sw18043.asp; and http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/indig.htm. Accessed 25 February 2008.

  201. 201.

    This was the view expressed by numerous participants at the sixth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 14–25 May 2007. See also Eide 2006, p. 194.

  202. 202.

    In this respect, see the document produced by the African Group of Experts, ‘Response Note’, 21 March 2007, under the sponsorship of IWGIA (copy with the auhor).

  203. 203.

    See the text of the amendments submitted on 17 May 2007 by the African Group, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the Human Rights Council, http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/AGDraft0507.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2008.

  204. 204.

    Ibid.

  205. 205.

    See http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/Declaration_IPs_31August.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2008.

  206. 206.

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/61/L.67, 12 September 2007, para 23 of the preamble.

  207. 207.

    See Peace Movement Aotearoa 2007; Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ‘Draft Aide Memoire’ of the African Group: A Brief Commentary’, 16 January 2007.

  208. 208.

    These being Burundi, Kenya and Nigeria. See UN Doc. GA/10612 in fine.

  209. 209.

    ‘Absent’ countries were Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Togo and Uganda. See UN Doc. GA/10612 in fine.

  210. 210.

    For the relevant discussion, see Van Genugten 2008, pp. 9 et seq. See also Van Genugten et al. 2007.

  211. 211.

    See Arts. 38–42 of the Declaration. For relevant doctrine, see Van Genugten 2008, pp. 1–28, Van Genugten et al. 2007, pp. 109–154, Eide 2006, pp. 155–212.

  212. 212.

    For the various statements, see UN Docs. GA/SHC/3878, A/61/PV.107, and A/61/PV.108.

  213. 213.

    See IWGIA update on African position 2006–2007, http://www.iwgia.org/sw21505.asp. Accessed 28 February 2008.

  214. 214.

    As in, for instance, ECOSOC 1996. For comments on the limited presence of representatives of African governments, see UN Docs. E/CN.4/2000/84, 6 December 1999, para 41, and E/CN.4/2001/85, 6 February 2001, para 20.

  215. 215.

    Anaya 2004, pp. 63–64; Thornberry 2002, pp. 374.

  216. 216.

    UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4, paras 627–630.

  217. 217.

    Ibid., paras 19–20, 302–303.

  218. 218.

    Stamatopoulou 1994, p. 69.

  219. 219.

    UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.2.

  220. 220.

    UN Doc. A/HRC/4/32/Add.3.

  221. 221.

    In that respect, see the various debates on Alfonso Martinez’ position on indigenousness in Africa and Asia as in his reports, UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/27, paras 108 et seq., and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20, paras 90–91. See contrary arguments in ECOSOC 1998, paras 103, 108.

  222. 222.

    AU, Assembly/AU/Dec.141 (VIII), para 7.

  223. 223.

    See, for instance, Tomasevski 1992–1993; United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African Union (UN-ECA and AU), Economic Report on Africa 2007: Accelerating Africa’s Development through Diversification, http://www.uneca.org/era2007/. Accessed 21 January 2008, for these terminologies in their contextual usage. See also GA Res. 60/1, adopting the 2005 World Summit Outcome, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005, para 10, where UN Member States: ‘reaffirm that development is a central goal in itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities’.

  224. 224.

    See Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.3.3).

  225. 225.

    World Bank, OP 4.10, para 22(b).

  226. 226.

    Oloka-Onyango 2000, Udombana 2002.

  227. 227.

    McNeish and Eversole 2005, pp. 1 et seq.

  228. 228.

    This participative approach is thus adopted in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) 2001, paras 103, 133.

  229. 229.

    See MacKay 2004, ECOSOC 1994.

  230. 230.

    Burger 1987, p. 1. The opening words of the book are ‘we don’t want a road, it will bring development’.

  231. 231.

    See Errico 2006.

  232. 232.

    World Bank 2003a, p. 8 (emphasis added).

  233. 233.

    World Bank 2003b, note 1.

  234. 234.

    ACHPR, IWGIA 2005, pp. 27–28. See also Bantekas 2005, p. 146.

  235. 235.

    IFAD 2003, p. 6.

  236. 236.

    See ‘Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility’, http://www.ifad.org/english/indigenous/grants/. Accessed 6 February 2008.

  237. 237.

    See UNESCO 2006, p. 54. UNESCO was involved in: Algeria (Tuareg), Botswana (Indigenous communities around Tsodilo, World Heritage List), Burundi (Batwa), Central African Republic (Aka Pygmies), Gabon (Babongo, Baka and Bakoya), Kenya (Maasai, Yakuu), Mali (Tuareg), Morocco (Amazigh), Namibia (Himba), Niger (Tuareg), South Africa (≠Khomani San); and Creole communities in Mauritius (including Rodriguez Island) and ‘La Reunion’ (France).

  238. 238.

    UNESCO 2006, p. 3.

  239. 239.

    See, e.g., UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2 November 2001, UNESCO Doc. 31C/Res 25, Annex 1 (2001); UNESCO, Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, CLT-2005/CONVENTION DIVERSITE-CULT REV., 20 October 2005.

  240. 240.

    Art. 3 UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

  241. 241.

    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, UN Doc. UNEP/Bio.Div./N7INC.5/4 (1992), entered into force on 29 December 1993.

  242. 242.

    UNEP, Convention on Biological Diversity: Report on Threats to the Practice and Transmission of Traditional Knowledge. Regional Report: Africa, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/WG8 J/5/INF/3, 16 July 2007, pp. 8 et seq.

  243. 243.

    Ibid.

  244. 244.

    Ibid.

  245. 245.

    Ibid.

  246. 246.

    Woodburn 2001, p. 12.

  247. 247.

    Kuruk 2007, pp. 73 et seq. (referring to the OAU/AU’s African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources, adopted by the Council of Ministers), http://www.opbw.org/nat_imp/model_laws/oau-model-law.pdf, endorsed by AU, http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/AUC/Departments/HRST/biosafety/DOC/doc1/AML%20ON%20COMM%20RTSLAW-Eng-Communities%20Rights-Access.doc, both accessed 28 March 2008.

  248. 248.

    For more on UNDP involvement with indigenous peoples, see http://www.undp.org/partners/cso/indigenous.shtml. Accessed 8 February 2008.

  249. 249.

    See, for instance, UNDP 2004, pp. 29 et seq.

  250. 250.

    Ibid., p. 63. the report refers to 11 official languages in South Africa, ‘9 indigenous, plus English and Afrikaans’, thereby suggesting that the latter two are not indigenous.

  251. 251.

    See the United Nations Indigenous Peoples’ Advisory Committee of Kenya, http://www.undp.org/partners/cso/publications/UNIPACK%20advisory%20committee.doc. Accessed 8 February 2008.

  252. 252.

    UN-HABITAT, OHCHR 2005, pp. 123–137.

  253. 253.

    Ibid., pp. 123–124.

  254. 254.

    See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/indileaflet9.doc. Accessed 11 February 2008.

  255. 255.

    Muehleback 2001, pp. 419 et seq.

  256. 256.

    See ECOSOC Res. 1982/34 on the Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, UN Doc. E/1982/82, 7 May 1982. According to GA Res. 60/251 of 15 March 2006, all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, including the Sub-Commission, were assumed, as of 19 June 2006, by the Human Rights Council.

  257. 257.

    UN Doc. E/1982/82, paras 1–2.

  258. 258.

    GA Res. 60/251 on the Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006.

  259. 259.

    For a text of the resolution, see HRC Res. 6/36 on the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/6/22, 14 December 2007.

  260. 260.

    Muehleback 2001, pp. 417–448, Alfredsson 1986, Sanders, ‘The UN Working Group’, 406–433.

  261. 261.

    ACHPR, IWGIA 2005, pp. 98.

  262. 262.

    Muehleback 2001, p. 420.

  263. 263.

    Sanders 1989, p. 410.

  264. 264.

    Human Rights Council 2006, para 3.

  265. 265.

    Muehleback 2001, p. 420.

  266. 266.

    Ibid.

  267. 267.

    Malezer 2005, p. 77.

  268. 268.

    Ibid., pp. 79–81.

  269. 269.

    UN Doc. E/RES/2000/22.

  270. 270.

    Ibid., para 2.

  271. 271.

    See Sanders 1989, p. 410.

  272. 272.

    Malezer 2005, p. 81.

  273. 273.

    UN Doc. E/RES/2000/22, para 1; Malezer 2005, pp. 81–82.

  274. 274.

    Malezer 2005, p. 77.

  275. 275.

    ECOSOC Res. 2001/57, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2001/57, 24 April 2001.

  276. 276.

    HRC Res. 6/12, Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/6/12, 28 September 2007.

  277. 277.

    UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2001/57, para 1. See also the manner in which the Special Rapporteur may fulfil his/her mandate at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/rapporteur. Accessed 2 April 2008.

  278. 278.

    See the reports of country visits by Special Rapporteurs Rodolfo Stavenhagen and James Anaya as of August 2009 in ECOSOC, Report[s] of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Country Visits to: Guatemala (E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.2, 24 February 2003); Philippines (E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3, 5 March 2003); Mexico (E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.2, 23 December 2003); Chile (E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.3, 17 November 2003); Colombia (E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2, 10 November 2004); Canada (E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3, 2 December 2004); South Africa (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.2, 15 December 2005); New Zealand (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3, 13 March 2006); Ecuador (A/HRC/4/32/Add.2, 28 December 2006); Kenya (A/HRC/4/32/Add.3, 26 February 2007); Bolivia (A/HRC/6/15/Add.2, 11 December 2007 and A/HRC/11/11, 18 February 2009); and Nepal (A/HRC/12/34/Add.3, 20 July 2009).

  279. 279.

    See., e.g., Niezen 2003, pp. 40 et seq, Anaya 2004, pp. 217 et seq; and the various chapters in Castellino and Walsh 2005.

  280. 280.

    Muehleback 2001, p. 417, quoting Lâm 1992, p. 617.

  281. 281.

    Ibid.

  282. 282.

    Terminology borrowed from Muehleback 2001, p. 418.

  283. 283.

    McIntosh et al. 2002, p. 23. The author refers to ‘a substantial contingent from Harlem’ without much precision, which might be the same group, or a group with similar agenda, as the above-named organization present during the sixth session of the UNPFII in May 2007. See the statement by the Ethiopian World Federation Incorporated, ‘The Forgotten Indigenous: Our Culture, Tradition & Heritage Was Sustainability’, http://old.docip.org/Permanent%20Forum/pf07/PF07taalibah220.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2008.

  284. 284.

    During the seventh session of the UNPFII, statements were made by representatives of the Basque country (from the French side) among other groups.

  285. 285.

    UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/27 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20.

  286. 286.

    Compare, for instance, Burger 1987, with ACHPR, IWGIA 2005.

  287. 287.

    Amadife and Warhola 1993, p. 549.

References

  • Aalen L (2006) Ethnic federalism and self-determination for nationalities in a semi-authoritarian state: the case of Ethiopia. Int J Minority Group Rights 13(2):243–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACHPR, IWGIA (2005) African commission on human and peoples’ rights and international working group for indigenous affairs. Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities. www.iwgia.org/graphics/Synkron-Library/Documents/publications/Downloadpublications/Books/AfricanCommissionbookEnglish.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2006

  • ACHPR, IWGIA (2006) Indigenous peoples in Africa: the forgotten peoples? The African commission’s work on indigenous peoples in Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann C et al (eds) (1993) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bee FK et al (2002) Challenges to traditional livelihoods and newly emerging employment patterns of pastoralists in Tanzania. ILO-INDISCO Study in collaboration with Jobs for Africa (JFA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfredsson G (1986) Fourth session of the working group on indigenous populations. Nord J Int Law 55:22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston P (ed) (2001) Peoples’ rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadife EN, Warhola JW (1993) Africa’s political boundaries: colonial cartography, the OAU, and the advisability of ethno-national adjustment. Int J Polit Cult Soc 6(4):533–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anaya SJ (2004) Indigenous peoples in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Anaya SJ (2005) Divergent discourses about international law, indigenous peoples, and rights over lands and natural resources: toward a realist trend. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 16:237–258

    Google Scholar 

  • HRC (25 April 2000) Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 40 of the covenant concluding observations of the human rights committee: republic of the Congo. UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.118

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach D (1980) Le Général de Gaulle et la Guerre Civile au Nigeria. Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines 14(2):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas I (2005) Sociological implications arising from World Bank projects and their impact on sub-saharan indigenous peoples. Int J Law Context 1(2):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barume AK (2000) Heading towards extinction? Indigenous rights in Africa: the case of the Twa of the Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo. IWGIA Document No. 101

    Google Scholar 

  • Barume AK (2005) Cadre légal pour la protection des droits des peuples indigènes et tribaux au Cameroun. International Labour Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojosi KN (2006) Protecting indigenous peoples in Africa: an analysis of the approach of the African commission on human and peoples’ rights. Afr Hum Rights Law J 6:382–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrows J (2001) Because it does not make sense: sovereignty’s power in the case of Delgamuukw v. The Queen. In: Kirkby D, Coleborne C (eds) Law, history, colonialism: the reach of Empire. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Brietzke PH (1995) Self-determination, or jurisprudential confusion: exacerbating political conflict. Wis Int Law J 14(1):69–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadhead SH (1979) Beyond decline: the kingdom of the Kongo in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Int J Afr Hist Stud 12(4):615–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1979) African boundaries: a legal and diplomatic encyclopaedia. Hurst & Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (1993) The role of collective rights in the theory of indigenous peoples’ rights. Transnatl Law Contemp Problems 3:89–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (1987) Report from the frontier: the state of the world’s indigenous peoples. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (1996–1997) The United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. St. Thomas Law Rev 9:209–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll AJ, Rajagopal B (1992–1993) The case for the independent statehood of Somaliland. Am U J Int’l L & Pol’y 8:653–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2005) The ‘right’ to land, international law & indigenous peoples. In: Castellino J, Walsh N (eds) International law and indigenous peoples. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J, Walsh N (eds) (2005) International law and indigenous peoples. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2000) Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention, fourteenth periodic reports: Algeria. 18 December 2000, UN Doc. CERD/C/362/Add.6

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2002) Reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention, fourteenth periodic report: Mali. 10 June 2002, UN Doc. CERD/C/407/Add.2

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2004) Reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention; sixteenth periodic reports: Tanzania. 19 November 2004, UN Doc. CERD/C/452/Add.7

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2005) Reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention, sixteenth periodic reports of states parties: Botswana. 2 September 2005, UN Doc. CERD/C/495/Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2006a) Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention: concluding observations on the report by South Africa. 19 October 2006, UN Doc. CERD/C/ZAF/CO/3

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2006b) Reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention, fifteenth periodic reports of states parties, Democratic Republic of the Congo. 3 November 2006, UN Doc. CERD/C/COD/15

    Google Scholar 

  • CERD (2007) Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 9 of the convention: concluding observations on the report submitted by the Tanzania. 27 March 2007, UN Doc. CERD/C/TZA/CO/16

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher AJ (1997) Nation-states, ‘quasi-states’, and ‘collapsed-states’ in contemporary Africa. GeoJournal 43(1):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford B (2002) Political process theory and transnational movements: dialectics of protest among Nigeria’s Ogoni minority. Soc Problems 49:395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coomans F (2003) The Ogoni case before the African commission on human and peoples’ rights. Int Comp Law Q 52:749–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corntassel JJ, Primeau TH (1995) Indigenous ‘sovereignty’ and international law: revised strategies for pursuing ‘self-determination’. Hum Rights Q 17:343–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2001) The right to self-determination in international law: its development and future. In: Alston P (ed) Peoples’ rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawhall N (1999) Indigenous peoples of South Africa: current trends. South African San Institute, International Labour Office, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • CRC (1994) Overview of the reporting procedures (basic reference document). UN Doc. CRC/C/33, 24 October 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristescu A (1981) The right to self-determination: historical and current development on the basis of United Nations instruments: study. UN Doc. E/CN.4/SUB.2/404/Rev.1, 1 January 1981

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley DJ (1963) Politics and tribalism in the Katanga. West Polit Q 16(1):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC (1994) Transnational investments and operations on the lands of indigenous peoples: report of the centre on transnational corporations submitted pursuant to sub-commission resolution 1990/26. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/40, 15 June 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC (1996) Reports of the working group established in accordance with commission on human rights resolution 1995/32. UN Docs. E/CN.4/1996/84, 4 January 1996, and E/CN.4/1997/102, 10 December 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC (1998) Report of the working group on indigenous populations on its sixteenth session (Geneva, 27–31 July 1998). UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/16, 19 August 1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Eide A (2006) Rights of indigenous peoples: achievements in international law during the last quarter of a century. Neth Yearb Int Law 37:155–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Errico S (2006) The World Bank and indigenous peoples: the operational policy on indigenous peoples (O.P. 4.10.) between indigenous peoples’ rights to traditional lands and to free, prior, and informed consent. Int J Minority Group Rights 13:367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erueti A (2006) The demarcation of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands: comparing domestic principles of demarcation with emerging principles of international law. Ariz J Int Comp Law 23:543–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezetah CR (1996–1997) International law of self-determination and the Ogoni question: mirroring Africa’s post-colonial dilemma. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law J 19:811–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman A (2001) Transforming peoples and subverting states: developing a pedagogical approach to the study of indigenous peoples and ethnocultural movements. Ethnicities 1(2):147–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1993) Postmodern tribalism and the right to secession. In: Brölmann C et al (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert J (2007a) Indigenous rights in the making: the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Int J Minority Group Rights 14:207–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert J (2007b) Nomadic territories: a human rights approach to nomadic peoples’ land rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 27(4):681–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2006) The Eritrea/Ethiopia claims commission oversteps its boundaries: a partial award. Eur J Int Law 17:699–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanauer LS (1995) The irrelevance of self-determination law to ethno-national conflict: a new look at the Western Sahara case. Emory Int Law Rev 9:133–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannikainen L (1998) Self-determination and autonomy in international law. In: Suksi M (ed) Autonomy: applications and implications. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock RK (1996) Kalahari communities: Bushmen and the politics of the environment in Southern Africa. IWGIA Doc. No. 79

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild A (1999) King Leopold’s ghost: a story of greed, terror, and heroism in colonial Africa. Mariner Books, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff A (2005) Indigenous land rights and the new self-determination. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 16:295–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Council (2006) Report of the working group on indigenous populations on its twenty-fourth session. 31 July-4 August 2006, UN Doc. A/HRC/Sub.1/58/22

    Google Scholar 

  • IFAD (2003) Indigenous peoples and sustainable development: roundtable discussion paper for the twenty-fifth anniversary session of IFAD’s governing council. February 2003, http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/gc/26/e/ip.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2008

  • Ijalaye DA (1971) Was ‘Biafra’ at any time a state in international law? Am J Int Law 65(3):551–559

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (1999) Report of the Eastern African women’s conference. Kenya

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (2003) Convention on indigenous and tribal peoples 1989 (169): a manual. International Labour Office

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (2005) The ILO and indigenous and tribal peoples. April 2005, Newsletter

    Google Scholar 

  • International Crisis Group (ICG) (2006) Nigeria’s faltering federal experiment. Africa Report No. 119

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam MR (1985) Secessionist self-determination: some lessons from Katanga, Biafra and Bangladesh. J Peace Res 22(3):211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RH, Rosberg CG (1982) Why Africa’s weak states persist: the empirical and the juridical in statehood. World Polit 35(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jibril N (2003–2004) The binding dilemma: from Bakassi to Badme—making states comply with territorial decisions of international judicial bodies. Am U Int’l L Rev 19:633–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamanu OS (1974) Secession and self-determination: an O.A.U. dilemma. J Mod Afr Stud 12(3):355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (2001) Reconciling five competing conceptual structures of indigenous peoples’ claims in international and comparative law. In: Alston P (ed) Peoples’ rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J, Lefeber R (1993) Africa: lost between self-determination and Uti Possidetis. In: Brölmann C et al (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Konings P (2005) The anglophone Cameroon-Nigeria boundary: opportunities and conflicts. Afr Aff 104:275–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (1994) National self-determination today: problems of legal theory and practice. Int Comp Law Q 43:241–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppe R, Potz R (2005) Law and anthropology: ‘indigenous peoples, constitutional states and treaties or other constructive arrangements between indigenous peoples and states’. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruk P (2007) The role of customary law under sui generis frameworks of intellectual property rights in traditional and indigenous knowledge. Ind Int’l Comp L Rev 17:67–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka W (2001) Politics in the vernacular: nationalism, multiculturalism, and citizenship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lâm MC (1992) Making room for peoples at the United Nations: thoughts provoked by indigenous claims to self-determination. Cornell Int Law J 25:603–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemarchand R (1962) The limits of self-determination: the case of the Katanga secession. Am Polit Sci Rev 56(2):404–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis IM (1989) The Ogaden and the fragility of somali segmentary nationalism. Afr Aff 88(353):573–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis J, Knight J (1995) The Twa of Rwanda: assessment of the situation of the Twa and promotion of Twa rights in post-war Rwanda. World Rainforest Movement and IWGIA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd AM (1994–1995) The Southern Sudan: a compelling case for secession. Colum J Transnatl L 32:419–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyle B (2005) Blood for oil: secession, self-determination, and superpower silence in Cabinda. Wash U Global Stud L Rev 4:701–718

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay F (2004) Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent and the World Bank’s extractive industries review. Sustain Dev Law Policy IV(2):43–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen A (2000) The Hadzabe of Tanzania: land and human rights for a hunter-gatherer community. IWGIA Doc. No. 98

    Google Scholar 

  • Makoloo MO (2005) Kenya: minorities, indigenous peoples and ethnic diversity. MRG Report, February

    Google Scholar 

  • Malezer L (2005) Permanent forum on indigenous issues: ‘welcome to the family of the UN’. In: Castellino J, Walsh N (eds) International law and indigenous peoples, pp 67–86. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews RO (1989–1990) From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: prerequisites of a settlement. Int J 45:292–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale R (1994) Self-determination: a human rights approach. Int Comp Law Q 43:857–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale R (ed) (2000) Self-determination in international law. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh I et al (2002) Defining oneself, and being defined as indigenous: a comment on J. Bowen (AT 16, 4) and M. Colchester (AT 18, 1). Anthropol Today 18(3):23–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeish J-A, Eversole R (2005) Introduction: indigenous peoples and poverty. In: Eversole R et al (eds) Indigenous peoples and poverty: an international perspective. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijknecht A (2001) Towards international personality: the position of minorities and indigenous peoples in international law. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JC (1975) The politics of decolonization in Portuguese Africa. Afr Aff 74(295):135–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehleback A (2001) ‘Making place’ at the United Nations: indigenous cultural politics at the U.N. working group on indigenous populations. Curr Anthropol 16(3):415–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutua M (1994–1995) Why redraw the map of Africa: a moral and legal inquiry. Mich J Int Law 16:1113–1176

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwembu DD (1999) L’Epuration Ethnique au Katanga et l’Ethique du Redressement des Torts du Passé. Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines 33(2/3):483–499

    Google Scholar 

  • New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) (2001) Framework Document. October 2001, http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/inbrief.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2008

  • Niezen R (2003) The origin of indigenism: human rights and the politics of identity. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon CR (1972) Self-determination: the Nigeria/Biafra case. World Polit 24(4):473–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyerere JK (1963) A United States of Africa. J Mod Afr Stud 1(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okafor OC (2000) After martyrdom: international law, sub-state groups, and the construction of legitimate statehood in Africa. Harv Int Law J 41:503–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoronkwo PL (2002–2003) Self-determination and the legality of Biafra’s secession under international law. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 25:63–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Oloka-Onyango J (1999) Heretical reflections on the right to self-determination: prospects and problems for a democratic global future in the new millennium. Am University Int Law Rev 15:151–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Oloka-Onyango J (2000) Human rights and sustainable development in contemporary Africa: a new dawn, or retreating horizons. Buffalo Hum Rights Law Rev 6:39–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Osaghae EE (2005) State, constitutionalism, and the management of ethnicity in Africa. Afr Asian Stud 4(1–2):83–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peace Movement Aotearoa (2007) Act now: UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. 15 June 2007, http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/DRIP0607.pdf, accessed 26 February 2008

  • Post KWJ (1968) Is there a case for Biafra? Int Aff 44(1):26–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlogan R (1993–1994) Towards a new vision of world security: the United Nations Security Council and the lessons of Somalia. Houst J Int Law 16:213–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Piñero L (2005) Indigenous peoples, postcolonialism, and international law: the ILO regime (1919–1989). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders D (1989) The UN working group on indigenous populations. Hum Rights Q 11:406–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2007) Title, control, and closure? the experience of the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary commission. Int Comp Law Q 56:755–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shivakumar SJ (2004) The place of indigenous institutions in constitutional order. Const Polit Econ 14(1):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjaastad E, Bromley DW (1997) Indigenous land rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: appropriation, security and investment demand. World Dev 25(4):549–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skurbaty Z (2000) As if peoples mattered: a critical appraisal of ‘peoples’ and ‘minorities’ from the international human rights perspective and beyond. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatopoulou E (1994) Indigenous peoples and the United Nations: human rights as a developing dynamic. Hum Rights Q 16:58–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers J (2007) Peoples and international law: how nationalism and self-determination shape a contemporary law of nations. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Swepston L (1990) A new step in international law on indigenous and tribal peoples: ILO convention No. 169 of 1989. Okla City University Law Rev 15:677–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Swepston L (2005) Indigenous peoples’ voices: indigenous participation in ILO convention 169. In: Kuppe R, Potz R (eds) Law and anthropology: ‘indigenous peoples, constitutional states and treaties or other constructive arrangements between indigenous peoples and states’. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO, Tamaynut (2003) Séminaire sur les Droits des Peuples Autochtones et la Convention No. 169 de l’OIT. Rabat

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchoumba B (2005) Indigenous and tribal peoples and poverty reduction strategies in Cameroon. ILO, Pro 169

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesfagiorgis GH (1987) Self-Determination: Its Evolution and Practice by the United Nations and Its Application to the Case of Eritrea. Wis Int Law J 6:75–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Tevoedjre A (1969) A strategy for social progress in Africa and the I.L.O.s contribution. Int Labour Rev 99:61–84

    Google Scholar 

  • The African Group of Experts (2007) Response note to ‘the draft Aide Memoire of the African group on the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples’, 21 March 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (2002) Indigenous peoples and human rights. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton J (2001) The origins and early history of the kingdom of Kongo, c. 1350–1550. Int J Afr Hist Stud 34(1):89–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney S (2002) The search for a new normativity: Thomas Franck, post-modern neo-tribalism and the law of self-determination. Eur J Int Law 13:941–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasevski K (1992–1993) Monitoring human rights aspects of sustainable development. Am University J Int Law Policy 8:77–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Udombana NJ (2002) How should we then live: globalization and the new partnership for Africa’s development. Boston University Int Law J 20:293–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Udombana NJ (2003) The unfinished business: conflicts, the African union and the new partnership for Africa’s development. George Wash Int Law Rev 35:55–106

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2007a) Adoption of declaration on rights of indigenous peoples a historic moment for human rights, UN expert says. Geneva, Press Release, 14 September 2007, http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/2F9532F220D85BD1C125735600493F0B?opendocument. Accessed 13 February 2008

  • UN (2007b) Message of Victoria Tauli-Corpuz. New York, Press Release, 13 September 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/Declaration_ip_vtc_press.doc. Accessed 13 February 2008

  • UN (2007c) Secretary-general says indigenous rights declaration ‘triumph’ for indigenous peoples around the world. SG/SM/11156 HR/4931, Press Statement, 13 September 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (2004) Human development report 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2006) UNESCO and indigenous peoples: partnership to promote cultural diversity. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001356/135656M.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2008

  • UN-HABITAT, OHCHR (2005) Indigenous peoples’ right to adequate housing: a global overview. United Nations Housing Rights Programme Report No. 7, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/IndigenousPeoplesHousingen.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2008

  • Van Genugten WJM (2008) The African move towards the adoption of the 2007 declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1103862. Accessed 31 August 2009

  • van Genugten WJM et al (2007) Loopholes, risks and ambivalences in international lawmaking: the case of a framework convention on victims’ rights. Neth Yearb Int Law 37:109–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace-Bruce NL (1985) Africa and international law-the emergence of statehood. J Mod Afr Stud 23(4):575–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch CE Jr (1995) The Ogoni and self-determination: increasing violence in Nigeria. J Mod Afr Stud 33(4):635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner S (1999) Rights and status of indigenous peoples: a global comparative and international legal analysis. Harv Hum Rights J 12:57–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J (1995–1996) Ethnic groups and the right to self-determination. Conn J Int Law 11:433–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Woocher LS (2000) The ‘Casamance question’: an examination of the legitimacy of self-determination in Southern Senegal. Int J Minority Group Rights 7(4):341–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodburn J (2001) The political status of hunter-gatherers in present-day and future Africa. In: Barnard A, Kenrick J (eds) Africa’s indigenous peoples: ‘first peoples’ or ‘marginalized minorities?’. Centre for African Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2003a) Implementation of operational directive 4.20 on indigenous peoples: an evaluation of results. Report No. 25754, April 2003, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/05/01/000160016_20030501182633/Rendered/PDF/257541OD04.20.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2008

  • World Bank (2003b) Implementation of operational directive 4.20 on indigenous peoples: an independent desk review. Report No. 25332, January 2003, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/02/15/000094946_0302040401114/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2008

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Victimology Institute Tilburg, Tilburg University, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Felix Mukwiza Ndahinda

Authors
  1. Felix Mukwiza Ndahinda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Mukwiza Ndahinda .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ndahinda, F.M. (2011). International Legal Framework and Indigenous Claims in Africa. In: Indigenousness in Africa. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-609-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation