¹ Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No 169), reprinted in ILM 1382 (1989).Google Scholar Only two Commonwealth countries—Fiji and Dominica—have ratified the Convention.

² See General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/163 (1994)Google Scholar and Resolution A/RES/59/174 (2005).Google Scholar

³ Economic and Social Council Resolution 2000/22.

⁴ See UN Doc A/HRC/1/L.10 (30 06 2006)Google Scholar; and also UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56.

⁵ See Thornberry, P, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (MUP, Manchester, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anaya, J, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004).Google Scholar

⁶ See Gilbert, J, Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors (Transnational Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff, Ardsley, 2006)Google Scholar

⁷ See ‘Indigenous Peoples and their relationship to Land: Final working paper prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Erica-Irene A. Daes’ UN Doc E/CN.4/SUB.2/2001/21.

⁸ See Barkan, E, The Guilt of Nations, Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2000).Google Scholar

⁹ See Ulrich, G and Boserup, L Krabbe (eds), Reparations: Redressing Past Wrongs, Human Rights in Development Yearbook 2001 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The most recent illustration includes the resolution proposed by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly deferring ‘consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. See document A/C.3/61/L.57/Rev.1 (28 11 2006).Google Scholar

¹¹ Yunupingu, G (ed), Our Land is our Life, Land Rights, Past Present and Future (University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1997).Google Scholar See also Patton, P, ‘The Translation of Indigenous Land into Property: The Mere Analogy of English Jurisprudence’ (2000) 6 Parallax 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² This is also true for New Zealand. However, the situation remains particular as the recognition of native title is flowing from the existence of the Treaty of Waitangi. See Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643, 2003 NZLR.Google Scholar See also US Supreme Court, Oneida Indian Nation v Country of Oneida (1974) 414 US 661.Google Scholar In general, see McNeil, K, Common Law Aboriginal Title (OUP, Oxford, 1989).Google Scholar

¹³ Reilly, A and Genovese, A, ‘Claiming the Past: Historical Understanding in Australian Native Title Jurisprudence (2004) 3 Indigenous Law Journal 19.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Looking at Canada, Australia and New Zealand McHugh refers to the emergence of a ‘jurisprudence of reconciliation’: McHugh, PG, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 539–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also McNeil, K, ‘Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin’ (2003) 2 Indigenous Law Journal 1.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Miller, J and Kumar, R (eds), Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries (OUP, Oxford, 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For references, see McNeil (n 12).

¹⁷ Haveman, P (ed), Indigenous Peoples Rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (OUP, Oxford, 1999).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Adong bin Kuwau v Kerajaan Negeri Johor [1997] 1 MLJ 418Google Scholar, [1998] 2 MLJ 158.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ibid 430.

²⁰ On this issue see Bulan, R, ‘Native Title as a Proprietary Right under the Constitution in Peninsula Malaysia: A Step in the Right Direction?’ (2001) 9 Asia Pacific Law Review 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Republic of Kenya—In the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi Civil Case No 238 of 1999 (OS). See also High Court at Nakuru, Moses Lesiamon Ole Mpoe v Commissioner Of Lands [2005].Google Scholar

²² Maya indigenous community of the Toledo District v Belize, Case 12.053, Report No 40/04, Inter-Am CHR, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.122 Doc 5 rev 1 at 727 (2004) para 107Google Scholar; and see the conclusion of the Commission on this point, para 131.

²³ ibid para 48.

²⁴ High Court of Botswana, Roy Sesana and Ke/wa Setlohobogwa v The Attorney General, Misca No 52 of 2002 (13 12 2006).Google Scholar

²⁵ See the case filed in 1998 by six leaders from the Akawaio and Arecuna communities, for references: Anselmo, L and MacKay, F, Indigenous Peoples, Land Rights and Mining in the Upper Mazaruni (Global Law Association, Tilburg, 1999).Google Scholar

²⁶ For references, see The Bakweri Land Claims Committee (BLCC) v The Republic of Cameroon (Case No 260/2002), African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

²⁷ Zimmermann, R and Visser, D, Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ See Jaichand, V, Restitution of Land Rights: A Workbook (Lex Patria, Johannesburg, 1997).Google Scholar

²⁹ Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994—Act No 22 [as amended by Act No 84, 1995 and Act No 78, 1996].Google Scholar

³⁰ For an overview of the proceedings, see Hoq, L Amena, ‘Land Restitution and the Doctrine of Aboriginal Title: Ritchersveld Community v. Alexkor Ltd and Another’ (2002) 18 SAJHR 421.Google Scholar

³¹ For an illustration, see Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and another LCC151/98 (22 03 2001), paras 44–8, 52.Google Scholar

³² The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 03 2003).Google Scholar

³³ ibid para 8.

³⁴ Barry, M, ‘Now another Thing must Happen: Richtersveld and the Dilemmas of Land Reform in Post-Apartheid South Africa’ (2004) 20 SAJHR 355, 368.Google Scholar

³⁵ Constitutional Court of South Africa, 2003 (12) BCLR 1301 (CC0) para 51.Google Scholar

³⁶ This point is also supported by decision regarding indigenous peoples' land rights in Québec, see R v Côté [1996] 3 SCR 139.Google Scholar

³⁷ For a discussion on the implications/limits of such integration, see Lehmann, K, ‘Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Rights and the Right to Culture’ (2004) 20 SAJHR 86.Google Scholar

³⁸ On the notion of exclusivity of such occupation, see High Court of Australia, Commonwealth v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ St Catherine's Milling and Lumber v The Queen (1889) 14 App Cas 46Google Scholar; Re Southern Rhodesia [1919] AC 211.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Johnson and Braham's Lessee v M'Intosh 21 US (8 Wheat) 1823Google Scholar; Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 US 1 (1830)Google Scholar; Worcester v Georgia, 31 US (1832).Google Scholar

⁴¹ eg the US Supreme Court in the 1833 case of United States v Percheman affirmed that when there is a change of sovereignty: ‘the people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other, and their right to property, remain undisturbed’, United States v Percheman (1833) 7 Pet 6132 US, 87Google Scholar; see also: Certain Questions Relating to Settlers of German Origin in the Territory Ceded by Germany to Poland PCIJ Ser B No 6 (10 09 1923).Google Scholar

⁴² See, eg, Vajesingji Joravarsingji v Secretary of State for India (1924) LR 51 Ind App 357.Google Scholar

⁴³ See High Court of Australia, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 107 ALR 1, paras 89 and 182Google Scholar; Supreme Court of Canada, R v Van der Peet 2 SCR (1996) 507, paras 18–19.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 107 ALR 1, 58.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Borrows, J and Rotman, L, ‘The Sui Generis Nature of Aboriginal Rights: Does it make a Difference?’ (1997) 36 Alta L Rev 9Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case No 488/2001, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (24 03 2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ibid para 9.

⁴⁸ Nor Anak Nyawai v Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd [2001] 2 Current Law Journal (Malaysia) 769.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See confirmation of such approach by the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and 3 Ors v Sagong Bin Tasi and 6 Ors 2005 [CA].Google Scholar

⁵⁰ N Pearson, ‘The Concept of Native Title at Common Law’ in Yunupingu (n 11).

⁵¹ For an illustration, see Supreme Court of Canada, Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) 3 SCR 1010.Google Scholar

⁵² Lamer CJ in R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 50.Google Scholar

⁵³ Island of Palmas Arbitration 2 R Int'l Arb Awards 831 (1928).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Elias, To, ‘The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law’ (1980) 74 AJIL 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Island of Palmas Arbitration 2 R Int'l Arb Awards 831 (1928).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Such reference would seem comparable to the principle of non retroactivity which is widely accepted at the national level.

⁵⁷ Elias, (n 54) 286.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ With some limitations on conquest, see Gilbert, (n 6) ch 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23Google Scholar; (1992) 175 CLR 1 FC 92/014 (3 June 1992), para 41.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ MacKay, F, Addressing Past Wrongs, Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to Restitution of Land and Resources (10 2002), at <www.forestpeoples.org/documents/law_hr/ips_restitution_protected_areas_oct02a_eng.pdf>..>Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sandra Lovelace v Canada, Communication No 24/1977 (14 08 1979), UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984) 10, paras 10, 11, 12, and 13.Google Scholar

⁶² Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Communication No 167/1984 (26 03 1990), UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/45/40) (1990) 1, para 33.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Simunek, Hastings, Tuzilova and Prochazka v The Czech Republic, Communication No 516/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992 (1995).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Representations under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution may be made by employers' and workers' organizations who claim that a State has failed to observe a ratified Convention. For details, see <http://www.ilo.org>.

⁶⁵ Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Mexico of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Radical Trade Union of Metal and Associated Workers, Doc GB.273/15/6; GB.276/16/3.

⁶⁶ Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Denmark of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Sulinermik Inuussutissarsiuteqartut Kattuffiat (SIK), Doc GB.277/18/3; GB.280/18/5, submitted 1999.

⁶⁷ ibid.

⁶⁸ Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Ecuador of the Indigenous and Tribal Convention, 1989 (No 169)Google Scholar, made under Art 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Confederación Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Sindicales Libres (CEOSL), Doc GB.277/18/4, GB.282/14/2, submitted 2000.

⁶⁹ Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/02, Doc 5 rev 1 (2002) 860, see para 167—IACHR.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Ormanecha, P, ‘Moiwana Village: The Inter-American Court and the “Continuing Violation” Doctrine’ (2006) 19 Harvard Human Rights Journal, 283.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Reilly, A, ‘The Australian Experience of Aboriginal Title: Lessons for South Africa’ (2000) 16 SAJHR 512, 515.Google Scholar

⁷² ibid. 73 Lehmann, (n 37) 111–12.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) para 154.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Lehmann (n 37) 111.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ General Comment No 23: The rights of minorities (Art 27): UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, General Comment No 23. (General Comments) para 7.

⁷⁷ I Länsman v Finland (Communication No 511/1992), UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.3.

⁷⁸ Apirana Mahuika v New Zealand, Communication No 547/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000) para 9.4.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See notably R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 40.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075Google Scholar; and R v Badger [1996] 1 SCR 771.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) 1095, para 138.Google Scholar

⁸² ibid 1089, para 128.

⁸³ McNeil, K, ‘The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title’ (Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, 2000).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) 1091, para 131.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Connolly, A, ‘Judicial Conceptions of tradition in Canadian Aboriginal Rights Law’ (2006) 7 Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁶ ibid 33.

⁸⁷ R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507, para 179.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Can) para 153 (Lamer CJ).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 50, para 64.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria [1998] FCA 1606, para 129.Google Scholar

⁹¹ ibid. 92

⁹³ ibid, majority judgment, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ, paras 86–7.

⁹⁴ Reilly and Genovese (n 13).

⁹⁵ ibid 21.

⁹⁶ Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14 (14 04 2005) para 17.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Reilly, and Genovese, (n 13) 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ As the authors highlights in this context metahistory ‘means the propounding of universal explanations of historical processes’, ibid 36.

⁹⁹ Supreme Court of Canada: R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Dorsett, S, ‘Clear and Plain Intention Extinguishment of Native Title in Australia and Canada post-Wik’ (1997) 6 Griffith Law Review 96.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See, eg, High Court of Australia, Western Australia v Ward; Attorney General (NT) v Ward; Ningamara v Northern Territory; Ward v Crosswalk Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Pearson, N, ‘Principles of Communal Native Title’ (2000) 5 ILB 19.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ McNeil, K, ‘The Vulnerability of Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and Canada’ (2004) 42 Osgoode Hall L J 271–302.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ McNeil, (n 103) 271.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ ibid.

¹⁰⁷ EI Daes, Special Rapporteur, ‘Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous People and their relationship to land’ Working Paper, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/17, para 29.

¹⁰⁸ ibid para 31.

¹⁰⁹ Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples by the Grand Council of the Cree (Eeyou Astchee) Montreal, Québec, 18 11 1993, 7.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ CERD, Decision 1 (66), para 6 UN Doc CERD/C/66/NZL/Dec 1.

¹¹² Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5 (2005), para 8.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary and Carrie Dann v United States Report No 113/01, Case No 11.140 (15 10 2001).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ ibid para 3.

¹¹⁵ See Shoshone Tribe v US 11 ICC 387 (1962).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 53.

¹¹⁷ ibid.

¹¹⁸ ibid para 82.

¹¹⁹ Mary and Carrie Dann v United States, Case 11.140, Report No 75/02, Inter-Am CHR, Doc 5 rev 1 at 860 (2002) 27, para 100.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ ibid 41, para 145.

¹²¹ ibid para 145.

¹²² Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (n 62) para 140.

¹²³ Human Rights Committee, General Comment 23, Art 27 (55th session, 1994), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) 38, para 7.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Länsman v Finland, Communication No 511/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992, para 9.5.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.105, para 8 (1999).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, para 8 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ eg see comments by the Government of Australia on the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14/Add.1 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ General Recommendation XXIII, Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/52/18, annex V, para 4(d) (1997).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ ibid para 5.

¹³⁰ Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Australia, UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/14, para 16

¹³¹ UN Doc CERD/C/SR.1235; on this issue, see Thornberry, P (n 5) 217.Google Scholar

¹³² See Expanded working paper submitted by Mrs Antoanella-Iulia Motoc and the Tebtebba Foundation offering guidelines to govern the practice of Implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in relation to development affecting their lands and natural resources, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/2005/WP.1.

¹³³ Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, M, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, UN Doc E/CN.4/2002/24/Add 1 (26 02 2002).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Extinguishment is ‘the cessation or cancellation of some right or interest’. Black's Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson West, St Paul, 2004) 623.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Slaughter, A-M, ‘Judicial Globalization’ (2000) 40 Va J Int'l L 1103.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Wiessner, S, ‘Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Analysis’ (1999) 12 Har Hum Rts J 57.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See Gilbert, J, ‘Indigenous Rights in the Making: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (2007) 14 IJMGR (forthcoming).Google Scholar