Search Results (12)

In Australian education, the challenges and complexities of school leadership and the educational achievement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are frequently debated. Each has been given individual attention, but little attention to how school leadership and educational success for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people collectively interact. While there are increasing expectations of school leaders enabling the success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives embedded in schools, knowledge is required about the role of transformative leadership approaches that enable cultural responsiveness in the actions and practices of school leaders. Framed by Rigney’s Indigenist Research Theory (IRT) and Transformative Leadership Theory (TLT), this paper draws from a collective case study that gathers the lived experiences of school leadership from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, community, staff and school leader participants. The findings illuminate the actions and practices that school leadership enact to lead culturally responsive and inclusive school communities. The study argues the necessity of school leaders valuing and engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, perspectives and lived experiences as critical for advancing educational success for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and education for all young people. Exploring the role of transformative leadership in the advancement of equity and excellence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education in Australia, this paper culminates in examining the implications for practice that also support the advancement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) of equity, inclusion, and quality education and lifelong learning for all. Full article

This article examines the persistent legal invisibility of the Kashmiri Pandits within international frameworks on indigenous rights and internal displacement. Despite meeting definitional criteria under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the community remains unrecognised as either indigenous or internally displaced. Drawing on Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), constructivist norm diffusion and decolonial intersectional critique, this article argues that this exclusion arises not from normative ambiguity but from geopolitical selectivity and epistemic suppression. Through doctrinal analysis of India’s treaty commitments, including its accession to the Genocide Convention (1959) and its interpretative reservation to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1979), this study reveals how recognition is constrained by state narratives of sovereignty and secularism. Supported by evidence from the NHRC inquiry, IDMC displacement data, and comparative experiences such as Native American recognition this paper demonstrates that categories of protection in international law are applied unevenly, depending on political compatibility rather than legal principle. It calls for renewed engagement with epistemic justice and narrative accountability in rethinking indigeneity and displacement in postcolonial contexts. Full article

This paper examines the pervasive yet underrecognized phenomenon of consumer racial profiling (CRP) against Indigenous peoples in Canada. Drawing on sociolegal analysis, public health research, and empirical data, the authors demonstrate how CRP—manifested in routine acts of surveillance, exclusion, and humiliation in retail and service spaces—functions as a contemporary expression of colonialism and systemic racism. The work identifies both individual and collective harms, including racial trauma, internalized inferiority, and civic alienation, while framing CRP as a neglected but critical human rights issue. The authors argue that CRP exacerbates intergenerational trauma and undermines reconciliation efforts, calling for Indigenous-specific remedies such as healing ceremonies, cultural safety training, and systemic data collection reforms. By situating CRP within broader patterns of legal consciousness, systemic discrimination, and access to justice, this report is a much-needed foundational resource for advancing anti-racist practices in commercial settings and fulfilling Canada’s private-sector obligations under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Full article

Ethnicity-based public health inequities continue worldwide, reflecting established failures in law, governance, and social justice. International legal instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), obligate states to provide equitable access to healthcare and address structural components of inequality. This article critically evaluates the effectiveness of these frameworks in advancing health equity, adopting a black-letter legal approach integrated with the social determinants of health models to assess whether ratified commitments have translated into quantifiable changes for marginalized ethnic populations. Case studies from Canada, Australia, and the United States—high-capacity health systems with entrenched inequities—portray the gap between normative commitments and practical implementation. Findings demonstrate that while international law has shaped discourse, promoted civil society advocacy, and influenced select policy reforms, weak enforcement, reliance on voluntary compliance, and insufficient accountability mechanisms curb its capability to generate consistent outcome-based change. Recommendations include establishing a framework convention on global health equity, strengthening the WHO’s mandate on racial justice, improving ethnic-disaggregated data reporting, and ingraining affected communities in policymaking. Normative strength is apparent, but operational impact remains dependent on an enforceable framework and sustained political will. Full article

The article examines possible amendments to the Australian legislative regime regulating and protecting Indigenous cultural heritage in an offshore, including underwater, context. It suggests that there are significant reforms that are needed to bring the existing domestic legislative regime into conformity with the expectations of contemporary international law, particularly as manifested in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In reaching this conclusion, the article proceeds by examining recent Australian jurisprudence and archaeological studies, considering offshore Indigenous cultural heritage as well as the current Australian domestic legislative framework. It then proceeds to examine the relevant provisions of both UNDRIP and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH Convention). The article identifies that the UCH Convention operates to ignore any legitimate role for Indigenous peoples and does not provide an appropriate foundation for legislative reform. The article concludes by suggesting the content of appropriate legislative reforms that accord with the expectations in UNDRIP. Full article

This article identifies the nature of Traditional Owners’ interests in Sea Country and addresses issues associated with all offshore energy projects—gas and wind. Exploring the impacts of offshore development on First Nations’ cultural heritage, the article proposes integration of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), into the regulatory and legislative offshore environment. In the Australian context, this particularly regards administrative and regulatory reforms to overcome uncertainty arising from recent decisions in the Federal Court. The international focus on new energy has fast-tracked many processes that sideline First Nations’ rights, hitherto understood within the onshore minerals extraction regimes. The reforms proposed in this article recognise an international commitment to enact the principles contained in the UNDRIP and other relevant international law. Full article

Indigenous Peoples have been stewarding lands with fire for ecosystem improvement since time immemorial. These stewardship practices are part and parcel of the ways in which Indigenous Peoples have long recorded and protected knowledge through our cultural transmission practices, such as oral histories. In short, our Peoples have always been data gatherers, and as this article presents, we are also fire data gatherers and stewards. Given the growing interest in fire research with Indigenous communities, there is an opportunity for guidance on data collection conducted equitably and responsibly with Indigenous Peoples. This Special Issue of Fire presents fire research approaches and data harvesting practices with Indigenous communities as we “Reimagine the Future of Living and Working with Fire”. Specifically, the article provides future-thinking practices that can achieve equitable, sustainable, and just outcomes with and for stakeholders and rightholders (the preferred term Indigenous Peoples use in partnerships with academics, agencies, and NGOs). This research takes from the following key documents to propose an “Indigenous fire data sovereignty” (IFDS) framework: (1) Articles declared in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as identified by the author and specified in Indigenous-led and allied Indigenous fire research in Australia, Canada, and the U.S.; (2) recommendations specific to cultural fire policy and calls for research in the 2023 Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission report; (3) research and data barriers and opportunities produced in the 2024 Good Fire II report; and threads from (4) the Indigenous Fire Management conceptual model. This paper brings together recommendations on Indigenous data sovereignty, which are principles developed by Indigenous researchers for the protection, dissemination, and stewardship of data collected from Tribal/Nation/Aboriginal/First Nations Indigenous communities. The proposed IFDS framework also identifies potential challenges to Indigenous fire data sovereignty. By doing so, the framework serves as an apparatus to deploy fire research and data harvesting practices that are culturally informed, responsible, and ethically demonstrated. The article concludes with specific calls to action for academics and researchers, allies, fire managers, policymakers, and Indigenous Peoples to consider in exercising Indigenous fire data sovereignty and applying Indigenous data sovereignty principles to fire research. Full article

The adoption and ratification of new conventions and treaties under international law designed to protect both Indigenous peoples and the rights of nature have resulted in successful rulings by local, federal, and regional courts in favor of Indigenous groups engaged in class-action suits against their governments. In 2012 and 2019, respectively, the Sarayaku Kichwa and the Huaorani and Cofán peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon won cases against the Ecuadorian government for its lack of consultation on planned oil exploration. Such cases upholding the correct application of the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) under international treaties are rare; more often, Western judicial systems and environmental impact assessments have been used to serve corporate interests, as exemplified by the Aguinda v. Texaco case initiated in 1993 and the planned operations of Andes Petroleum in Orellana province 2019–2020, respectively. Indigenous and non-Western epistemologies tend to be incompatible with state-driven liberal secular capitalism—hence Indigenous efforts to prevent land seizures and the expansion of the extractive frontier into Indigenous territories in the Amazon rainforest have been undermined by the imperatives of modernization/developmentalism. These same forces have stimulated demand for gold, the legal and illegal mining of which, along the Napo river, have caused the contamination of the waters of the Amazon, threatening the health of Indigenous and non-indigenous riverine communities. Full article

Articles 27 and 34 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognise Indigenous Peoples’ laws. Art. 34 gives Indigenous Peoples the right to maintain their juridical systems or customs in accordance with international human rights standards. Although the UNDRIP is soft law, its core is arguably customary law and, therefore, a binding source of law. For States with Indigenous People, such as Norway, the UNDRIP is of paramount importance, from a legal, political, and not least moral perspective. This paper discusses norm hierarchies and tensions that are created in the meeting between the Indigenous customary law of the Sámi and statutory domestic Norwegian law. The introduction of customary, commonly unwritten, Indigenous rules into the judicial portfolio of a State creates an obvious challenge: what is their legal status? Can Indigenous law set aside domestic statutory norms? Some might argue that due to historical wrong, Indigenous law should always take precedence when domestic law conflicts with it. While Norwegian domestic law acknowledges the precedence of certain core human rights treaties over domestic laws, the same is not valid for Indigenous rights. How then should Indigenous custom be dealt with before a court of law, and how do the different legal systems relate to each other? This paper is foremost based on theoretical, to a lesser degree also on empirical material. It discusses on a general level the relationship between different legal systems within the same State and, on a specific level, the dealing of the Norwegian courts with Sámi Indigenous laws and customs. Full article

Asserting the right to meaningful representation, challenging the epistemological and methodological expansion of global corporate capitalism and its impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ territories and cultures, aligns with the implementation of global treaties and conventions that are part of key international laws regarding issues of climate change, biodiversity conservation, education, global health, human rights, and sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples have been consistently excluded from nation state visions of modernity and development, which continues to limit their full participation in global sustainable development initiatives and their meaningful representation therein. Increasing the visibility of this struggle is imperative for Indigenous Peoples, particularly around the strategic areas in which the implementation of global sustainable development treaties, policies, and goals continues to affect their rights. This article inquires whether Indigenous Peoples’ emancipatory appropriation of media means from a transnational perspective that breaks their regional enclosure can contribute to decolonize the world. More specifically, it questions how a new Indigenous global media network would contribute to decolonize the relations between Indigenous Peoples and nation states. A wider mapping of Indigeneity that decolonizes sustainable development becomes critical in order to formally document the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to reconstruct and restore their epistemic and material relations. This article questions how an Indigenous global media network around new nexus research can benefit Indigenous Peoples, and make visible the incorporation of the recommendations and principles from international law emanated from the self-determined voices of Indigenous leaders, experts, and policy makers to decolonize global sustainable development goals. Full article

The article constructively critiques the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) 12 Principles on Water Governance (the OECD Principles). The human rights standard, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), provided the foundation for conceptualizing Indigenous water rights. The analysis used a modification of Zwarteveen and Boelens’ 2014 framework of the four echelons of water contestation. The analysis indicates that the OECD Principles assume state authority over water governance, make invisible Indigenous peoples’ own water governance systems and perpetuate the discourses of water colonialism. Drawing on Indigenous peoples’ water declarations, the Anishinaabe ‘Seven Grandfathers’ as water governance principles and Haudenosaunee examples, we demonstrate that the OECD Principles privilege certain understandings of water over others, reinforcing the dominant discourses of water as a resource and water governance based on extractive relationships with water. Reconciling the OECD Principles with UNDRIP’s human rights standard promotes Indigenous water justice. One option is to develop a reinterpretation of the OECD Principles. A second, potentially more substantive option is to review and reform the OECD Principles. A reform might consider adding a new dimension, ‘water justice,’ to the OECD Principles. Before reinterpretation or reform can occur, broader input is needed, and inclusion of Indigenous peoples into that process. Full article

While international instruments and a few state governments endorse the “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about the water in their traditional territories, most state water governance regimes do not recognize Indigenous water rights and responsibilities. Applying a political ecology lens to the settler colonialism of water governance exposes the continued depoliticizing personality of natural resources decision-making and reveals water as an abstract, static resource in law and governance processes. Most plainly, these decision-making processes inadequately consider environmental flows or cumulative effects and are at odds with both Indigenous governance and social-ecological approaches to watershed management. Using the example of groundwater licensing in British Columbia, Canada as reinforcing colonialism in water governance, this article examines how First Nations are asserting Indigenous rights in response to natural resource decision-making. Both within and outside of colonial governance processes they are establishing administrative and governance structures that express their water laws and jurisdiction. These structures include the Syilx, Nadleh Wut’en and Stellat’en creating standards for water, the Tsleil-Waututh and Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc community assessments of proposed pipeline and mining facilities, and the First Nations of the Nicola Valley planning process based on their own legal traditions. Where provincial and federal environmental governance has failed, Indigenous communities are repoliticizing colonial decision-making processes to shift jurisdiction towards Indigenous processes that institutionalize responsibilities for and relationships with water. Full article