Global Standards, Local Failures: Indigenous Rights Under International Law

International law has been the historic safeguard for human rights, yet it has proven to be unreliable in enforcing its own global standards. Authoritarian regimes, including those signed onto universal human rights declarations, persistently violate international law and face impunity from the world’s superpowers. This inaction can be attributed to an inherent hypocrisy, as powerful nations either seek to obscure their own poor human rights records or prioritize economic interests over accountability. Indigenous populations are minority groups that face additional challenges when encountering human rights issues like land dispossession, lack of political representation, systemic discrimination, and barriers to accessing healthcare, education, and economic opportunities. Their rights are often infringed upon by forced removal or the enactment of new laws that suppress accessibility to services. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, “affirming that indigenous people are equal to all other peoples.” [1] The declaration further expands on promoting the autonomy of indigenous people for the purpose of social and cultural enhancement. [2]

Despite efforts to promote indigenous equality, indigenous rights still remain vulnerable today. In the November 2024 dispute between the indigenous Maori and New Zealand’s Parliament, protests broke out against the Treaty Principles Bill that sought to significantly restrain Maori rights. [3] Proponents of the bill argue that the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840, signed between the Maori and the British Crown, gives the Maori greater political rights than those of common New Zealanders. [4] Dissent of the bill stems from claims that the bill would prevent all progress for Maori integration into society and would sustain disproportionate levels of poverty for the Maori. [5] Although the bill passed its first reading, it faces opposition from numerous political parties. [6] The world was further alarmed when a clip of Maori legislator Maipi-Clarke went viral for ripping her copy of the bill and leading a haka dance in protest of the proposed legislation. [7] The New Zealand Treaty Principles Bill debate is just one example of the normalization of threats on indigenous rights. Violations of indigenous rights are still prevalent in the attack of the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh, native ethnic groups in Brazil, the cleansing of the Massai from Tanzania, and the Torres Strait Islanders in Australia.

The United Nations is the world’s largest intergovernmental organization, but it is far from the only authority that can establish global standards for human rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is a subgroup of the Organization of American States, which operates from Washington D.C. [8] It has thirty-four member states, including countries in North, South, and Central America, with the primary aim of protecting human rights and security in the Western Hemisphere. [9] The IACHR can refer cases to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACtHR) that acts in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights. [10] Although the court produces rulings in its courts on human rights violations, its enforcement falls short of any legitimate consequences and only relies on state cooperation. 

This lack of enforcement was evident in 2012, when the IACtHR ruled against the Republic of Ecuador for its failure to respect the indigenous territory of the Sarayuku people. [11] This conflict, spanning nearly a decade, involved over one ton of explosives that were left in indigenous territory. [12] The court ruled that the indigenous Sarayaku had not been consulted on the Compania General de Combustibles (CGC) oil company’s project and that Ecuador had violated property and cultural identity rights. [13] It was determined that Ecuador must remove the explosives and the state must adopt legislation that grants consultation and notice to indigenous people of future projects on their property. [14] However, four years later, lawyers of the Sarayaku announced that Ecuador had still not complied with the ruling, proving that the ruling of international courts was not heeded. [15] Though Sarayaku filed a non-compliance lawsuit with the courts, the IACtHR did not rule on a definitive deadline until January of 2024. [16] The case spanned two entire decades for an issue that required immediate attention and regulation. 

The tribunal international courts — the European Court on Human Rights, Inter-American Court on Human Rights, and African Court on Human rights  — subsequently demonstrated that they lack the power to enforce their rulings and ensure states comply. Especially for indigenous people and vulnerable groups that often have little to no representation in international courts, non-compliance by states sets a dangerous precedent for regimes around the world.

The impunity of the world’s superpowers lies in the hypocrisy of their own global standards. Nations that champion human rights often fail to uphold these values when their economic interests are at stake, as seen in Ecuador’s case, where the government prioritized oil industry profits over indigenous land rights. Without policing mechanisms to ensure compliance with international rulings, human rights protections remain theoretical rather than practical. Rights exist universally and precede legal frameworks, yet economic considerations often overshadow ethical obligations. It is in the hands of advocacy organizations and international human rights coalitions to ensure that ethical standards for human rights, especially for indigenous communities, do not continue to face systemic injustices. For true human rights accountability, there must not only be a stronger legal framework in a local context but also an ethical commitment to prioritizing justice over political expediency.

Edited by Sarah Guttman
Endnotes

[1] United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution 61/295, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007), https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tens of Thousands Protest New Zealand Māori Rights Bill, Al Jazeera, Nov. 19, 2024, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/19/tens-of-thousands-protest-new-zealand-maori-rights-bill.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid. 

[8] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, What is the IACHR?, Organization of American States, https://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/mandate/what.asp.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Organization of American States, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/basics/statutecourt.asp#:~:text=The%20Inter%E2%80%91American%20Court%20of,Convention%20and%20the%20present%20Statute.

[11] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Judgment of June 27, 2012, Series C No. 245, https://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_245_ing.pdf.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Ecuador Remains Non-Compliant with Inter-American Court’s Ruling on Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, https://cejil.org/en/press-releases/ecuador-remains-non-compliant-with-inter-american-courts-ruling-on-kichwa-indigenous-people-of-sarayaku/.

[16] Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Historic Decision in Favor of the Sarayaku People Orders Definitive Deadline to Comply with IACHR Ruling, https://cejil.org/en/press-releases/historic-decision-in-favor-of-the-sarayaku-people-orders-definitive-deadline-to-comply-with-iachr-ruling/.