To what extent have legal and non-legal measures been effective in recognising Indigenous People's rights?The role legal and non-legal responses have, to a large extent, been effective in enhancing the recognition and assimilation of indigenous people’s (IP) culture, land, and intellectual property rights into the national identity, as the moral weight of international measures, a lack of indigenous autonomy and judicial rulings continues to drive political momentum for domestic reform.
I like this! The wording is a little bit messy though, doesn't quite read smoothly, try fixing that up!However, with minority indigenous groups such as the Torres Strait Islanders, Maoris, Sami’s, Khosan’s and San facing continued repression from overhanging colonial and constitutional conformity, there is an increasing call for long overdue legal and non-legal interventions to redress the long-term conflicts of land tenure and self-determination.
Good intro, but I think it needs more meat (two sentences is definitely not enough). Add some justification of why the topic is important for discussion, and remember to add your judgement (this is an evaluation question and you must state your position on the matter definitively.Topic 1Historically marginalised and disadvantaged, indigenous groups are increasingly represented by legal and non-legal international bodies and frameworks such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, and the ICCPR weight at the national level.
Try to integrate a judgement in the start of every sentence: Are these frameworks effective or ineffective?With the UN IGO, International Labour Organisations endorsing the 1989 International Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO 169) - the first legally binding instrument exclusively protecting indigenous people and non-consensual developments on tribal lands, was established. However, with only 22 countries having ratified it, it’s effectiveness in forging beneficial partnerships, has been severely limited. For example, despite Finland’s criticism by the European Council for failing to ratify ILO 169, this disregard for international standards continues unabated with the recently enacted Finnish Forestry Act 2016.
Excellent analysis and example! The provisions fails to “contain valuable safeguards for Sami people’s traditional livelihoods, lands, territories and resources” warned the indigenous UN Special Rapporteur, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, with no informed consent required for railway, mining and forestry projects. Thus, this legal measure has quashed the Sami self-determination, by obstructing the cultural and economic benefits afforded by the land.
Great examples!! You could try making the wording a little more succinct, but on the whole the evidence is fantastic!However, to help counter state overreach, the NGO’s Greenpeace article, “Victory for Greenpeace and Reindeer in Lapland”, successfully raised social awareness for the demarcation of tribal lands. By subsequently pressurizing the Finnish government to implement a 20-year logging moratorium and establishing a reindeer Forest Rescue Station, the Sami’s livelihood and cultural rights were protected more effectively.
Work on creating 3 complete paragraphs that focus on a single topic: This has strayed from the topic at hand.Additionally, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC)’s international watching brief continues to ensure compliance and enforcement of the ICCPR, as seen in the Sandra Lovelace v Canada 1977 HRC case, where Lovelace successfully argued that Canada’s Indian Act 1876 violated Articles 26 and 27 of the ICCPR, as it stripped women of their inherent Indian status upon marrying externally. This outcome subsequently compelled the government to enact the Indian Amendment Act 1985 and reinstate the lost status of 95,429 persons (ESCR) thus emphasising the effectiveness of legal and non-legal international interventions in formally recognising indigenous cultural rights.
Effective approach overall! I think you just need to tidy up the structure of the ideas, get it all into one flowing paragraph.Point 2:Furthermore, with indigenous lawyer Noel Pearson, rightly stating that, “redressing disadvantage … depends on indigenous people having the power to make decisions that affect them”, the plight of constitutional recognition and parliamentary representation has increasingly relied on legal and non-legal mechanisms.
Although Australian Aboriginal activism precipitated the landmark 1967 Referendum, and resulted in their inclusion in the national census, the detrimental consequences of the government’s new power to legislate over indigenous affairs emerged, in the case of the “Little Children are Sacred” child abuse report, when it suspended the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and hastily contrived the 2007 NT Intervention policy.
Be careful sentences do not flow on too long, this one was a bit of a mouthful! Relying on the report’s allegations to build consensus, the policy’s harsh law enforcement and welfare quarantining provisions, earned it a severe rebuke for flagrant overreach and power abuse by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Having portrayed the referendum as symbolic and ineffective, the NGO, Recognise renewed its efforts to drive the social and political agenda for the full inclusion of ATSI in the Australian Constitution, and eradicate any residual racial discrimination provisions, such as, Section 51- “the race power”.
Remember to continually link your examples to a judgement: Thus, effective because ______, ineffective because ______, etc.In stark contrast, the seven dedicated Maori seats in the NZ Parliament, and the prominent Treaty of Waitangi established a system of land and property rights, such as the Kaimoana Customary Fishing Regulation 1998, which extended the protection of their fishery livelihoods, and enhanced self-determination.
Slightly messy expression here.Elsewhere however, despite the San people comprising 3.3% of the South African population, the country’s Constitution continues to underrepresent this minority and propagate the exploitation of tribal land and resources. For example, in the Hoodia Plant case, The Observer 2011 newspaper, detailed the infringement of the San’s intellectual property rights by a British pharmaceutical company, which patented a native plant’s appetite suppressing ingredient, without consultation or consent. As a counter, the NGOs Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in SA and Biowatch, raised public awareness of the San’s plight, and subsequently established the Hoodia Benefit Sharing Trust, which secured their entitlement to royalties, and highlighted the importance of non-legal intervention to ensure indigenous representation.
Point 3:Furthermore, although WIPO Director General Francis Gurry stated, “intangible cultural heritage is prone to what is perceived by many as misappropriation and misuse”, judicial rulings and non-legal consultations have increasingly exerted pressure on sovereign states to redress indigenous grievances.
I like your inclusion of quotes to start your argument! Cool touch! 
For example, the Australian High Court’s landmark ruling of the Mabo v Queensland (2) 1992, established the Native Title doctrine and subsequently paved the way for the Native Title Act 1993 thereby creating a uniform framework for the registration and recognition of land claims and rights. Although, Mabo’s non-legal prior consultation with Henry Reynolds, a James Cook University history academic, was effective in catalysing the case and led to the realisation that he had a potential claim to the Murray Islands land, no explicit determination regarding ATSI sovereignty arose from the Mabo decision. With the Howard government narrowing the definition of native title, and hastily enacting the Native Title Amendment Act 1998, this increased burden of proof on ATSI exposed an ineffective application of state sovereignty, and saw Justice Robert French rightly proposing a reversal, such that all claimants were presumed to have a “continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty”.
Elsewhere, whilst the independent judicial reviews by the European Court on Human Rights uphold the rights of indigenous people, in the case of Handolsdalen Sami Village v Sweden, the court ruled that the Sami were indeed liable for the Swedish state’s large legal costs, despite their claim under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights- access to courts. In spite of concerted judicial efforts to recognise indigenous rights at domestic and international levels, the case highlights the inherent difficulties faced by traditional land owners when confronting state or privately controlled organisations.
Conclusion:
Thus, with issues of land tenure and minimal autonomy persisting, one would like to see, over the next three years, maximum inclusion of indigenous rights within national charters, as well as greater legal and non-legal international and domestic resources to ensure a political and social climate conducive to fair deliberation, whilst leveraging positive change for indigenous rights.
Definitely need a little more meat to this conclusion as well. Re-state your Thesis, re-list the arguments you have made, and make YOUR judgement (Good, Bad, Ugly) extremely clear. 
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 142589 times)