Abstract
This paper examines whether the present global governance structure is suitable to accommodate indigenous peoples’ aspirations. For long, these institutions have focused on states, but not on indigenous peoples. Even when the focus has been given on indigenous peoples, the approach is State-focused. Its recent example is the passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), keeping states’ interests intact. It took a long time for this Declaration to get approved. The norm entrepreneurs spent most effort on finding an acceptable ground for states rather than indigenous peoples. When provisions on the Declaration did not seem to pose a threat to sovereignty norms, states agreed to pass the Declaration. States’ interest was served, and indigenous nationalities compromised. In particular, indigenous peoples got the right to self-determination, the central thrust of their demand, with qualification, when States got the same right as wished. In this background, this paper investigates- What prevents global governance institutions to take indigenous perspectives when it comes to dealing with the structural injustice and systemic violence? It argues that the basic structure of global governance institutions that considers states as constituencies prevents the UN from giving a proper response to indigenous issues. It thus becomes important to restructure institutions. Else, failure is likely to continue. This paper takes ‘document analysis’ as its methodological approach, and studies major UN documents, archival reports and published interviews to investigate its research question.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, UNDRIP
