The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007 after more than two decades of negotiations, stands as one of the most significant documents in contemporary international law. Its importance lies not only in the recognition of historically denied collective and cultural rights but also in its potential to reshape the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and States through a framework of justice, self-determination, and reconciliation.
This vision was articulated by Dr. Albert Barume, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, during his remarks in the recent webinar “Implementation of UNDRIP in United Nations Member States and the UN system, including the identification of good practices and the addressing of challenges.”
The webinar helped foster a deeper understanding of UNDRIP and the responsibilities of the Australian state regarding its implementation. It also raised awareness of the rights enshrined in UNDRIP and their application in ongoing truth-telling and treaty processes in Victoria, Australia. The event provided an opportunity to engage directly with Dr. Albert K. Barume following his recent private visit to Australia, during which he met with numerous First Nations representatives. The visit was organized by the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA).
I. The Declaration as a Response to Historical Wrongs
Albert Barume framed UNDRIP not as a treaty born from abstract diplomatic consensus, but as a response to a long history of state-sanctioned wrongs: denial of existence, forced assimilation, territorial dispossession, and systematic cultural violence. “The Declaration,” he affirmed, “is a reparative document. It does not grant new rights. It recognizes rights that were denied for centuries.”
This addresses one of the most persistent misunderstandings: the notion that the Declaration confers special privileges or rights upon Indigenous Peoples. Barume dismantled this view with clarity. What UNDRIP does is adapt the language and structure of international human rights law to cultural, historical, and legal realities that were—and in many cases continue to be—overlooked by conventional legal frameworks.
II. The Four Pillars of the Declaration
Barume structured his intervention around four core objectives of UNDRIP, which illuminate both its content and its internal logic:
- Recognition as Peoples and Nations
International law has historically excluded Indigenous Peoples as collective subjects. Recognizing them as “peoples” entails acknowledging their right to identity, culture, and political structures. This is an affirmation of cultural sovereignty and a vital step toward equity. - Equal Enjoyment of Human Rights
Contrary to claims that Indigenous Peoples receive preferential treatment, the Declaration emphasizes that universal human rights apply equally to them. The difference lies in the mode of their exercise, which must respect culturally and politically distinct systems. - Self-Determination
Barume was unequivocal: self-determination is not merely a principle—it is the foundational right that enables all others. It allows Indigenous Peoples to decide how to govern themselves, organize their justice systems, education, health, and development. It is not about secession or rupture, but about dignified participation. - New relationship between the states and Indigenous peoples
Far from being a separatist manifesto, UNDRIP advocates for a renewed relationship grounded in mutual respect. It invites States to rethink their interactions with Indigenous Peoples—not as administrators or guardians, but as equal partners.
III. Beyond Paper: Real Implementation and Persistent Challenges
Although the Declaration was adopted by an overwhelming majority in the UN General Assembly, its implementation remains uneven and, in many contexts, largely symbolic. Barume warned of enduring gaps between formal rights and state practices, particularly concerning:
- Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC):
While many States reference FPIC rhetorically, actual compliance—especially in large-scale extractive projects—is minimal. - Legal Recognition of Indigenous Institutions:
Few countries have established effective systems to validate Indigenous norms, laws, and governance structures. - Public Education:
A widespread lack of knowledge about the Declaration in government institutions, schools, and media hinders its adoption by civil society.
In response, Barume proposed a clear path forward: to educate Indigenous communities about their rights while simultaneously holding States accountable for their duty to promote human rights education. Citing the Declaration is not enough—it must be translated into action, funding, training, and structural reform.
IV. Law as a Tool for Resistance
One of Barume’s most compelling ideas was his call to reclaim legal language as a means of transformation. “Rights are not granted; they are claimed,” he stated firmly. This assertion carries particular power in a world where Indigenous Peoples remain largely excluded from global decision-making, especially regarding climate change, biodiversity, and conflicts over land and water.
The call is clear: UNDRIP must not remain confined to government offices or UN archives. It must be in the hands of every Indigenous youth, in schools, in parliaments, and within social movements. Only a citizenry educated in its rights can effectively demand them. And only peoples conscious of their dignity can fully exercise it.
Conclusion: An Ethical Map for the Future
Albert Barume went beyond a technical presentation. He spoke from a place of deep commitment to global justice and outlined an ethical roadmap that urges us to confront history with honesty, engage the present with urgency, and face the future with hope.
UNDRIP is not a final destination—it is a compass. And like any compass, it only fulfills its purpose when we choose to walk with it.
