Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:41:36.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revision Of ILO Convention No. 107

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Russel Lawrence Barsh
Russel Lawrence Barsh*
Affiliation:
Four Directions Council, Seattle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Meeting for 10 days in Geneva last September, a group of 15 experts convened by the International Labour Office recommended substantial changes in ILO Convention No. 107, which for nearly 30 years has been the only binding international instrument on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Noting the importance placed on the right to self-determination by indigenous peoples, the experts concluded that the Convention’s original emphasis on integration “no longer reflects current thinking” and should be replaced by the principle of affording these peoples “as much control as possible over their own economic, social and cultural development.” The Organisation’s Board of Governors approved the experts’ report in November, and placed the revision on the agenda for the 1988 General Labour Conference.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 756 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See especially Article 2(1) of the Convention, calling on governments to develop “co-ordinated and systematic action for the protection of the populations concerned and their progressive integration into the life of their respective countries.” Convention (No. 107) concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, International Labour Organisation, International Labour Conventions and Recommendations, 1919–1981, at 858 (1982) [hereinafter Convention].

2 ILO Doc. APPL/MER/107/1986/D.7, at 32.

3 Barsh, , Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law, 80 AJIL 369 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For parallel activities in other international bodies, see UNESCO, Meeting of Experts on Ethno-Development and Ethnocide in Latin America, San Jose (Costa Rica), UNESCO Doc. SS 82/WS.32 (1981); World Bank, Tribal Peoples and Economic Development: Human Ecologic Considerations (1982).

4 See Barsh, , The IX Inter-American Indian Congress, 80 AJIL 682 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Bennett, G., Aboriginal Rights In International Law (Occasional Paper No. 37 of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1978)Google Scholar; Swepston & Plant, , International standards and the protection of the land rights of indigenous and tribal populations, International Labour Rev., No. 1, 1985, at 91 Google Scholar; Barsh, , Indigenous North America and Contemporary International Law, 62 Or. L. Rev. 73, 81–84 (1983)Google Scholar.

6 See especially Arts. 5, 7(2) and 13(1) of the Convention, supra note 1.

7 Id., Art. 11.

8 Id., Art. 12(1).

9 Id., Art. 12(2).

10 Id., Art. 1(a).

11 Id., Art. 1(b). Compare the working definition prepared by the UN Centre for Human Rights, in UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1983/CRP.2 (“Ideas for the definition of indigenous populations from the international point of view”).

12 After the meeting of experts, Iraq ratified the Convention. Previously, it had been ratified by 14 Latin American states (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru); 6 African states (Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi and Tunisia); 4 states in Asia (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic); and 2 in Western Europe (Belgium and Portugal). On the basis of the criteria in the World Bank’s study, supra note 3, it is estimated that these states (not including Iraq) administer some 100 million indigenous and tribal people.

13 Representatives of two NGOs, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples and Survival International, were invited to serve as experts. In addition, there were “observers” from several indigenous NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC (the Four Directions Council, the Consejo Indio de Sud America, the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service Secretariat), as well as several nonstatus indigenous organizations from Australia and India, and nonindigenous NGOs with expertise in this field.

14 In the multiethnic, multitribal and entirely indigenous states of Africa, observed Djibrilla Diaroumeye of Niger, “who is going to integrate whom?”

15 Dr. Ossio of Peru, arguing that cultural diversity should never be extinguished “in the name of equality,” referred to the right to “take a more active part in national life,” and to “more equality among groups” within the national political system.

16 “In Brazil the self-determination of indigenous populations is not acceptable,” argued Dr. Jose Antunes de Carvalho of that country’s National Confederation of Industry, because “they cannot survive without the protection of the public authorities; but this does not rule out consultation.”

17 Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, Final Part, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/21/Add.8, paras. 580–81.

18 He nonetheless admitted that Canada’s Constitution Act 1982, §35 (sched. B of UK Canada Act 1982, ch . 11) , refers to “the aboriginal peoples of Canada.”

19 Nevertheless, the term “peoples” was used throughout the report of the meeting.

20 Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, note 17 supra, paras. 379–80.

21 Without, he was quick to add, implying a less advanced stage of development. Carlos Escudero of the World Bank described his agency’s classification of “tribal” as “isolated, low-energy economies such as hunting, gathering, fishing, and shifting agriculture.”

22 There was general agreement that “land” should include water and the use of the sea, as well as controlling access to—if not actual ownership of—the subsoil.

23 ILO Doc. APPL/MER/107/1986/D.7, at 32.