Indigenous Peoples and international solidarity

International solidarity may be considered as the positive corollary of non-discrimination and equality, as it calls for inclusion of all in the enjoyment of human rights. Article 4 (1) of the revised draft declaration on human rights and international solidarity states: “The right to international solidarity is a right of individuals and peoples to participate meaningfully in, contribute to and enjoy a social and international order in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized.”¹

1. See A/HRC/53/32, annex I. ↩

The previous Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity recognized Indigenous Peoples as entitled to enjoy solidarity.² The international community may be inspired by examples of international solidarity pursued by Indigenous Peoples who seek to address global challenges, including protection of the environment and empathy for vulnerable groups, such as migrants and minorities. Indigenous Peoples need solidarity from the international community in seeking recognition and incorporation of Indigenous rights within national law, improving the access of Indigenous Peoples to higher education in law, international relations and economics, and including Indigenous Peoples in national delegations to international forums.

2. A/HRC/53/32/Add.1, para. 100. ↩

In preparing the report, the Independent Expert sought written contributions from Member States, civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples and academics.³ Video consultations with Indigenous Peoples were conducted in October and November 2024. The Independent Expert also met with Indigenous Peoples during the official country visits that she undertook to Suriname in January 2025 and Denmark and Greenland in May 2024. A review of the academic literature and the reports of the treaty bodies and the bodies set up under the Charter of the United Nations was carried out and an analysis of international, regional and national legal standards was also undertaken.

3. All submissions received, with the exception of those that remain confidential, will be available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/call-input-report-indigenous-peoples-and-international-solidarity. ↩

An example of a vision of Indigenous solidarity is one which envisions unity within multiculturalism through the creation of “the kind of society in which we could trust each other enough to place our lives in each other’s hands, by linking arms together, and eating together out of the same bowl”.⁴ Professor of Journalism at OsloMet University and Professor II at Sami University College, Norway, Roy Krøvel, explains that the emergence of a global Indigenous solidarity movement was contemporaneous with the weakening of class politics around the world.⁵ According to Bryonn Bain, writing in the National Black Law Journal, there is a range of solidarity implementation options at the political level:
The meaning of solidarity has been an issue at the heart of social movements across the globe. Exactly what is meant by “solidarity” varies considerably, but there is a tendency for the term to be used to describe an ideal code of conduct that is, to some extent, non-individualistic, non-competitive, and non-exclusive. One approach to understanding how this is envisioned and engaged by movements is to distinguish between a “moderate solidarity” limited to advocacy of reform, respect and freedom for all, and a “radical solidarity” that demands the fundamental, transformative change of systemic and structural inequities.⁶

4. See Robert A. Williams, Jr., “Linking arms together: Multicultural constitutionalism in a North American Indigenous vision of law and peace”, California Law Review, vol. 82, No. 4 (July 1994). ↩
5. See Roy Krøvel, “Solidarity matters: Global solidarity, revolution and Indigenous Peoples in Latin America” in The Routledge Companion to Global Popular Culture, Toby Miller, ed. (New York, Routledge, 2017). ↩
6. See Bryonn Bain, “Rad talk: The radical solidarity of Dolores Huerta and Harry Belafonte”, National Black Law Journal, vol. 26, No. 1 (2017). ↩

In one submission received from Nepal, the authors explain the particular value of the international Indigenous solidarity perspective as enabling Indigenous groups to amplify their advocacy efforts through collective lobbying and resource-sharing, which is particularly critical for communities facing oppression or surveillance at home. Such networks provide a platform for marginalized groups to develop their capacity, raise their voices and share their experiences.

In its submission, the Escuela Jurídica de los Pueblos in Lima identified the positive factors that ground the pursuit of an international Indigenous solidarity strategy, including:
(a) Exchange of knowledge based on experience and adapted to different contexts, strengthening Indigenous competence;
(b) Support networks to promote joint mobilization and response to critical situations;
(c) An increase in the global visibility of Indigenous unity and joint demands through South-South and South-North support networks;
(d) Strengthening of autonomy to implement self-determination and autonomy in decision-making.

The Escuela also identified weaknesses:
(a) The risk of a lack of a unified global solidarity strategy based on the diversity of contexts marked by variable social and cultural factors;
(b) Inequality of resources and support between the Indigenous Peoples of the global North and South; the Indigenous Peoples of the North have greater access to resources, which results in a division between them and the Indigenous Peoples of the South;
(c) The challenges of global equity marked by low levels of participation of Indigenous women, in particular in the global South;
(d) Coordination challenges due to dispersal across significant geographic distances and lack of access to technology to facilitate communication of solidarity ideas between Indigenous Peoples.

It is notable that Katie Boudreau Morris of Carleton University, Ottawa, calls for the adoption of a bottom-up decolonizing solidarity paradigm in which solidarity is a strategy for and a process of decolonization:
Deep and authentic decolonizing solidarity building is both worthwhile and possible if these relationships are negotiated across power imbalances beginning from the bottom, are not based on self-interest, and are based on unsettled relationality. Decolonizing solidarity relationships are mutually forged over time through exploring our own social, epistemological, and physical locations and questioning for specifics and listening to others, particularly others’ stories and histories.⁷

7. Katie Boudreau Morris, “Decolonizing solidarity: cultivating relationships of discomfort”, Settler Colonial Studies, vol. 7 (2017). ↩

Solidarity may be considered a principal foundation of decentralized Indigenous governance, one which is actually formally recognized in article 238 of the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador.⁸ Indeed, it has been suggested that one of the most significant intersectoral solidarity movements involving Indigenous Peoples is the one that led to the change of government in Ecuador in 2000:
In effect, the Indigenous population, considered the quintessential oppressed and exploited sector of Ecuadorian society, gained considerable ground in terms of organizational headway. Led by the CONAIE [Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador)], its basic organizations had advanced from an agrarian position to a general struggle against the socioeconomic and cultural model prevailing in Ecuadorian society. With this twist, the Indigenous movement had achieved an impressive level of alliances and solidarity with other popular sectors of Ecuador. For Indigenous leaders, in order to overcome the enormous problems of Ecuador, they would have to dispense with the colonial logic that forms the foundation of the Ecuadorian state and society. The transformation of Ecuador into an intercultural and plurinational country, the establishment of social justice, and the equitable treatment of all its citizens became the principal objective of this social movement.⁹

8. Article 238 states that: “Decentralized autonomous governments shall have political, administrative and financial autonomy and shall be governed by the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, interterritorial equity, integration and public participation.” ↩
9. See José Almeida Vinueza, “The Ecuadorian Indigenous movement and the Gutiérrez regime: The traps of multiculturalism”, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol. 28, No. 1 (May 2005). ↩

The refusal or failure by States to recognize the history and needs of Indigenous Peoples may actually be designed to prevent them from receiving international solidarity support.¹⁰ Moreover, Indigenous solidarity is weakened by the processes of migration from Indigenous territories to urban centres, membership in modern political parties that offer socioeconomic subsidies as a form of solidarity, joining peasant communities to access development or agricultural assistance, education within law schools that do not teach Indigenous customary law and other aspects of interaction with modern societal and State institutions. This phenomenon profoundly impacts communal identity and “the continuities in terms of the ongoing dialectic between solidarity and factionalism continue and have contributed to multiple ‘post-peasant’ identities”.¹¹

10. See Benedict Kingsbury, “‘Indigenous Peoples’ in international law: A constructivist approach to the Asian Controversy”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 92, No. 3 (July 1998). ↩
11. See Juliet S. Erazo, review of Elusive Unity: Factionalism and the Limits of Identity Politics in Yucatán, Mexico by Fernando Armstrong-Fumero, in Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol. 38, No. 2 (November 2015). ↩

There are several international forums that enable international solidarity exchanges for Indigenous Peoples, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Voluntary Carbon Market Engagement Forum. These forums provide a space for Indigenous Peoples to give voice to international solidarity ideas to address global challenges, such as the global summit on Indigenous peacebuilding, held for the first time in Washington, D.C., in April 2024. This included the adoption of the Indigenous declaration on peacebuilding and the establishment of a global network of Indigenous peacebuilders. As noted by Binalakshmi Nepram Mentschel, “Eighty per cent of conflicts around the world are happening in biodiversity areas where Indigenous Peoples live. … Any peace-building efforts in global conflicts must involve and include Indigenous Peoples. Peace-making efforts are currently usually negotiated at high political levels, behind closed doors, and with violent groups – where Indigenous Peoples are rarely represented.”¹²

12. Binalakshmi Nepram Mentschel, “Healing people, peace & planet: World’s Indigenous leaders at the first global summit on Indigenous peacebuilding held in Washington DC urges United Nations to include Indigenous peacebuilding approaches in resolving global conflicts”, International Peace Bureau, 30 April 2024. See also Ekaterina Zibrova, “Indigenous Peoples of Russia against the war: Narrative analysis of the stages of ethnic identity as a resource of activism”, Ethnologia Polona, vol. 45 (2024). ↩

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues followed up the global summit on Indigenous peacebuilding by calling for the participation of Indigenous Peoples, particularly women and girls, within truth and reconciliation mechanisms, as well as peace processes. The manifest linking of international solidarity and peace by Indigenous Peoples provides guidance to the international community when facing the escalation of armed conflict around the world.

There are also regional forums, such as the Coordinating Body of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin,¹³ the Encuentro Internacional de Guardias Indígenas (including the Indigenous Peoples of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru),¹⁴ the Inuit Circumpolar Council (involving the Inuit peoples of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America), the Aymaras Sin Fronteras (including the Indigenous Peoples of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Chile and Peru) the Unión de Pueblos Originarios Transfronterizos (including Indigenous Peoples from Costa Rica and Panama) and the Pueblos Transfronterizos (including Indigenous Peoples from the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama and Peru).¹⁵ The Russian Federation has an initiative to bring together Indigenous Peoples from within the region and a House of the People that brings together Indigenous Peoples and minority groups to share cultural heritage events and traditions.¹⁶ The International Working Group of Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact is composed of Indigenous and civil society organizations working on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in isolation and initial contact in the Amazon and Gran Chaco regions.

13. See www.climatealliance.org/indigenous-partners/coica.html. ↩
14. See www.idl.org.pe/primer-encuentro-internacional-de-guardias-indigenas-en-ucayali/. ↩
15. See https://www.territorioindigenaygobernanza.com/web/pueblos-transfronterizos/. ↩
16. Online consultation. ↩

Indigenous Peoples may also arrange informal regional meetings when present at international events, yet they often face financial and technical constraints. Some Indigenous Peoples suggest that tribes from the North may enjoy a stronger voice in international forums (in part due to the dominance of the English language), while others are concerned about fragmentation among Indigenous Peoples within their own nations due to polarizing interference by State and corporate actors with political parties. Indigenous people from Africa report racism when applying for visas to attend international forums in Geneva and New York, resulting in their not participating.

Some countries, such as Canada, facilitate the participation of leaders of national Indigenous organizations in United Nations meetings and this is complemented by the provision of funding for travel for elders, youth and other experts to meetings, as well as donations to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples and the Indigenous Fellowship Programme. Honduras supported Indigenous leadership participation in the launch by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022–2032). Other countries, such as Costa Rica, explain that funding for the participation of Indigenous Peoples in forums such as the meetings of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is dependent on international support from programs such as REDD+ and the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal de Costa Rica (the National Forestry Financing Fund, FONAFIFO).¹⁷

17. See submission by Costa Rica. ↩

At the national level, there are examples of institutions, such as the Consejo de Participación Indígena in Argentina, that promote dialogue, exchange of cosmovision and creation of intercultural public policies, as well as national meetings of the Indigenous Peoples and organizations of Argentina to address challenges such as forced evictions and violence. Another example is the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People in Nigeria that pursues environmental actions, protection of the cultural heritage and justice.¹⁸ A further example is the Initiative for the Promotion of Batwa Education for Sustainable Development based in Bujumbura, which promotes Batwa participation in governance and the promotion of sustainable development. The Batwa have three deputies and three senators in the national parliament of Burundi and one deputy representing them in the East African Community. Furthermore, Burundi has a ministry dedicated to Indigenous affairs. Denmark, Fiji, New Zealand, Singapore and Zimbabwe also have parliamentary seats for Indigenous Peoples.19 13 See www.climatealliance.org/indigenous-partners/coica.html. 14 See www.idl.org.pe/primer-encuentro-internacional-de-guardias-indigenas-en-ucayali/. 15 See https://www.territorioindigenaygobernanza.com/web/pueblos-transfronterizos/. 16 Online consultation. 17 See submission by Costa Rica. 18 See https://www.mosop.org/. 19 See Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations Development Programme, “The representation of minorities and Indigenous Peoples in parliament: A global overview” (2010). GE.25-07689

18. See https://www.mosop.org/. ↩

One of the foremost threats to Indigenous solidarity is the conflation of the term “local communities” with Indigenous Peoples. The Assembly of First Nations has issued a policy paper critiquing this trend as infringing on the rights to self-determination, self-identification and recognition.²⁰

20. See Saami Council, “Policy paper on Indigenous Peoples and ‘local communities’” (April 2024). ↩

Another threat is the selected legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples by Governments that favour certain tribes over others, resulting in the denial of legal rights and discriminatory access to government services. That includes limitations on rights to access natural resources, as described in one submission received, in which the authors stated that there were many instances of Indigenous Peoples (men and women) being prevented from accessing natural resources, such as forests or rivers, to collect firewood, fodder for cattle, wild fruits and vegetables, or fish to sustain their livelihoods.

Indigenous solidarity is made worse by the negative impact of extractive industry actors that engage in practices that damage the environment and affect Indigenous Peoples living near mining sites, such as dumping toxic substances into rivers or creating excessive noise (such as blasting). Indigenous communities may be divided by companies giving younger members of the community access to resources that challenge traditional leadership or Indigenous leaders may themselves profit from the concession of Indigenous territory to private actors to the detriment of the community as a whole, resulting in further fragmentation.

Land is an essential element of Indigenous intergenerational solidarity. Ironically, Indigenous Peoples have noted that while their beautiful landscapes are often photographed, the Indigenous people themselves are removed from the photo. Indigenous Peoples have a prior history of territorial occupation and an ancestral attachment to their land before it was conquered and occupied by others.²¹ As described by the non-governmental organization (NGO), Maat for Peace, the inadequate legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights results in the expansion of cases of “land-grabbing, exploitation and resource extraction for commercial purposes, often without adhering to the principle of free, prior and informed consent, leading to violations of rights of these communities”. Indigenous pastoralists are subject to displacement, food insecurity and conflict. IFAD seeks to help Indigenous Peoples receive collective title deeds to lands traditionally owned by their ancestors.

21. See Paul J. Magnarella, “The evolving right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples”, St. Thomas Law Review, vol. 14, No. 2 (2001). ↩

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued decisions upholding solidarity rights for Indigenous Peoples, specifically addressing land rights. In the case of Saramaka People v. Suriname, intergenerational equity served as a basis for the right to restitution of land. In that case, the Court held that not only Indigenous Peoples but also tribal communities were entitled to the protection of their ancestral lands, enabling them to transmit their distinct traditions to future generations. In the case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, the Court interpreted the concept of “solidarity” as involving past, present and future generations and forming the basis of rights and reparations.²² In her summary of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia at the Court, Jenna Eyrich describes the targeting of Indigenous leaders seeking restitution of ancestral lands by paramilitary groups in Colombia because they were perceived as a threat to class solidarity.²³ In that case, the Vice-President of Colombia acknowledged the State’s responsibility for human rights violations committed against Mr. Escué-Zapata and his next of kin, and expressed solidarity with the Indigenous community.²⁴ The Government of Honduras states that it pursues compliance with the judgments from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases involving Indigenous Peoples, including the cases of the Garifuna people and the Miskito people.²⁵

22. See Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Ayan Garg and Shubhangi Agarwalla, “In defence of future generations: A reply to Stephen Humphreys”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 34, No. 3 (August 2023). ↩
23. See Jenna Eyrich, “Escué-Zapata v. Colombia”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 36, No. 1 (Spring 2014). ↩
24. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Escué-Zapata v. Colombia, Order, 18 May 2010, monitoring compliance with judgment. ↩
25. See Community Garifuna of San Juan and its members v. Honduras, Judgment, 29 August 2023; Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, Judgment, 31 August 2021; Community Garifuna Triunfo de la Cruz and its members v. Honduras, Judgment, 8 October 2015; and Garifuna Punta Piedra Community and its members v. Honduras, Judgment, 5 October 2015. ↩

The Committee on the Rights of the Child addressed the case of three Sami children belonging to a multigenerational Sami reindeer-herding family who alleged that the State had violated their right to cultural identity by failing to conduct an environmental, social and child’s rights impact assessment or obtain free, prior and informed consent from the community prior to granting a mineral exploration licence in their herding territory.²⁶ The Committee explained that the State’s failure to allow the Indigenous children to participate in decision-making and abide by the free, prior and informed consent standard resulted in discrimination and violation of their cultural identity. The Committee called upon the State to amend its legislation accordingly. That view is a confirmation of the role of international law in promoting recognition of intergenerational Indigenous solidarity in relation to land rights.

26. See CRC/C/97/D/172/2022. ↩

The Supreme Court of India upheld the land rights of tribal peoples in accordance with the provisions of the fifth schedule of the Constitution of India.²⁷ India has a Forest Rights Act that establishes that the Gram Sabha and scheduled tribal and other traditional forest dwellers have responsibility for the conservation and protection of biodiversity, wildlife, forests, adjoining catchment areas, water sources and other ecologically sensitive areas, as well as for stopping any destructive practices affecting those resources or cultural and natural heritage of the tribal peoples.²⁸ They are to be protected from displacement, eviction, or removal and are to be supported in receiving recognition of their forest rights, in part through the total prohibition of transfer of immovable property outside the tribe.

27. See Supreme Court of India, Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, Judgment, 11 July 1997. ↩
28. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. ↩

In Nepal, the Government started to establish national park and conservation areas in 1972 and the country currently has 12 national parks, one wildlife conservation area, one hunting conservation area and six conservation areas. These areas cover around 23.4 per cent of the country. Initially, such areas were established with the aim of protecting and conserving valuable endangered flora and fauna, biological diversity and ecosystems as a whole. However, reportedly, the intended and promised benefit-sharing with those people residing in the indicated areas was poorly implemented, restricting them from accessing natural resources and practically turning them into outsiders in their ancestral lands. As a result, conflicts emerged between the park authorities and peoples living in the buffer zones.²⁹

29. “Buffer zone” in Nepal means the peripheral area of a national park or wildlife reserve where people have usufruct right to the resources and implies that the establishment of protected areas has a measurable impact on adjoining areas and the people living there and vice versa. ↩

Indigenous solidarity with the environment is intrinsic to Indigenous identity and cultural heritage. Indigenous Peoples in Latin America are empowered to increase their participation in the public processes that address environmental matters in those jurisdictions that have ratified the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement).

Solidarity actions by Indigenous communities in Canada have involved communication by Twitter and the blockade of railroads in opposition to amendments to a budget bill that eliminated protections for critical waters and fisheries.³⁰ The Indigenous leadership was subject to court orders that required limitation of protest actions. It is notable that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders criticized the heavy use of criminal charges of “disturbance of public order” against Indigenous People engaged in solidarity actions addressing protection of their traditional land from plans to develop megaprojects and exploit natural resources without prior consultation.³¹ In one submission received, the authors noted that legislation related to anti-terrorism, counter-insurgency policies, limitations on foreign donations and regulations on communication technologies was frequently weaponized to criminalize their advocacy efforts. They noted that Indigenous People were silenced by government bodies and targeted by security forces and vigilante groups, resulting in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings. Similarly, there is a marked escalation of assassinations of Indigenous defenders who have protested against illegal mining and drug trafficking within their territories in Latin America.³² In Guatemala, Indigenous Peoples led protests against corruption in 2015, defended the independence of the judiciary in 2017 and led protests against attempts to jeopardize democratic elections in 2023. As a result, different and diverse components of Guatemalan society came together and were able to have an impact on national processes.

30. See Dayna Nadine Scott, “Commentary: The forces that conspire to keep us ‘idle’”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 28, No. 3 (2013). See also Val Napoleon, “Behind the blockades”, Indigenous Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2010). ↩
31. A/HRC/37/51/Add.2, paras. 32 and 47. The Special Rapporteur also described the application of “divide and conquer” strategies that break the collective solidarity of Indigenous Peoples. ↩
32. See Global Witness, “Missing voices: The violent erasure of land and environmental defenders” (September 2024). ↩

The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) is considered the embodiment of the trade union movement’s legacy of solidarity with Indigenous and tribal peoples.³³ It is complemented by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Convention has also influenced the World Bank’s operational guidelines on Indigenous Peoples. These instruments ground the principle of the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples in the use of their territories; nevertheless States often fail to enforce this standard on corporations engaged in natural resource extraction or development projects impacting the environment.³⁴ Although many States have incorporated these standards into national legislation, there appears to be a lack of political will to ensure full implementation, thereby hindering respect for international Indigenous solidarity law in practice.³⁵ As one contributor explained, within the context of regional development projects Governments often fail to ensure the participation of Indigenous Peoples in planning or follow-up: “Large-scale infrastructure projects or economic agreements negotiated at the government level often exclude local communities, particularly Indigenous and marginalized groups, who may be impacted by these projects without having a say in their design or implementation.” Even initiatives designed to improve consultation with Indigenous Peoples will require follow-up to monitor transparency and accessibility.³⁶ The European Union Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence requires consultation, participation and the establishment of a complaints procedure for stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples, as part of the due diligence obligation of companies.

33. Ruslan Garipov, “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Russian North: Main challenges and prospects for future development”, Human Rights Brief, vol. 23, No. 1 (2020). ↩
34. International Labour Organization, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), art. 15. See also arts. 28 and 29 of the Declaration. ↩
35. By the Constitution Act of Canada (1982), Governments have a constitutional duty to consult Indigenous Peoples. See also the 2011 Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult, the Federal Initiative on Consultation, the Impact Assessment Act and the Action Plan on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ↩
36. See, for example, the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the consultation initiative from Guatemala and the consultation law of Costa Rica. ↩

Article 6 (3) of the revised draft declaration on human rights and international solidarity contains an implicit due diligence standard whereby corporations have the duty to create effective mechanisms for the presentation of solidarity demands by Indigenous Peoples.³⁷ Non-State actors also have a duty to respect the right to international solidarity. Non-State actors uphold that duty by refraining from conduct that aids, assists, controls or coerces a State or non-State actor to breach obligations under international or national law and by providing transparent, accessible mechanisms for communication and response to solidarity demands presented to them by civil society, labour unions, Indigenous Peoples and other groups.

37. See A/HRC/53/32. ↩

When applied together, such normative instruments can help Indigenous Peoples call for the concrete establishment of procedures to provide input and feedback to companies engaged in investment projects within their territories. The Independent Expert suggests the creation of indicators to measure effectiveness in the participation of Indigenous Peoples in projects involving extraction of natural resources within their territories or other similar actions.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that Colombia was required to pursue prior consultation of the U’wa Indigenous people prior to extracting gas or petroleum from the national park of Cocuy; the failure to do so constituted a violation of collective property, the right to political participation, access to information and the right to cultural life.³⁸ The Court has emphasized the importance of the Government of Brazil demonstrating due diligence in recognizing collective title to property, protecting the land of Indigenous Peoples from interference by third parties, and providing indemnification for violations.³⁹ The State has yet to comply with that decision. Increased attention is being paid to the centrality of the procedural aspects of solidarity perspectives regarding Indigenous Peoples.

38. See U’wa Indigenous People and its members v. Colombia, Judgment, 4 July 2024. See also Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, recognizing the collective property title of Indigenous Peoples; and Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment, 17 June 2005. ↩
39. See Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, Judgment, 5 February 2018. ↩

The Canadian Human Rights Commission hosted a panel to discuss environmental racism and its effects on Indigenous Peoples, such as environmental contamination on or near Indigenous lands, as well as the lack of remedies.⁴⁰ Canada has created Indigenous and protected and conserved areas in which Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving land and water ecosystems through Indigenous governance, law and knowledge. They are supported in projects such as reclaiming clam gardens, land stewardship practices, weather predictions, biodiversity and ethics. In the northern territories, Canada has resource co-management boards to conduct environmental assessments of land-use planning and project approvals. They are composed of Indigenous members who make recommendations to federal and territorial ministers on major projects. These may include public hearings in multiple Indigenous languages and lead to community-based monitoring programmes or oversight boards. Nevertheless, there is concern that the mechanisms are accessible to Indigenous organizations but not to Indigenous individuals.

40. See https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/strategic-policy-branch/environmental-justice.html. ↩

The Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes has pointed out the obligation of States to ensure that private actors respect laws safeguarding the global commons and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.⁴¹ In one submission received, the problems that Indigenous Peoples face when trying to present solidarity claims to international corporations operating in their territories were described: “a lack of accessible mechanisms for raising concerns, inadequate information about existing channels, challenges related to non-recognition as Indigenous Peoples within national contexts. Language barriers, particularly regarding English, further complicate communication and advocacy efforts”.⁴²

41. A/HRC/45/12/Add.2, para. 96. ↩
42. See submission by the Chittagong Hill Tracts Citizens’ Committee. ↩

It is of concern that corporations have used gender-based violence as a tactic to seize land or quell community resistance to industrial mega-projects.⁴³ Those who resist exploitation of their resources by the extractive industries or refuse to leave their territories are displaced, criminalized, forcibly disappeared or even killed.⁴⁴

43. Submission by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, “Honduras: Climate change, human rights violations, and forced displacement” (December 2023), p. 6. ↩
44. See submission by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, expert declaration by Donald Hernández Palma, “Root causes of migration: how climate change and environmental degradation impact Honduran asylum seekers” (October 2024). ↩

There are Indigenous environmental solidarity networks, such as the Eastern Himalayan network on climate change and the East Himalayan and Lower Mekong Youth Network.⁴⁵ These networks join Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities from Bhutan, China, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand. They cooperate to address landslides, droughts, floods and biodiversity loss. They also tackle violence against women, displacement and land grabbing, and issue joint declarations and statements.⁴⁶ Similarly, Indigenous Peoples Rights International cooperated with Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples to express solidarity with the Saami people of Norway in the case of the failure of the Government of Norway to respect their right of free, prior and informed consent for the establishment of a wind farm in their reindeer-herding territory.⁴⁷

45. See submission by the Chittagong Hill Tracts Citizens’ Committee. ↩
46. See, for example, https://press.un.org/en/2007/hr4923.doc.htm. ↩
47. See “Call for support Norway: Respect the rights of the Saami people amid the green transition”, 2 March 2023. ↩

The government of Costa Rica described how the REDD+ programme enabled a national consultation of the Indigenous Peoples to set up environmental projects entitled plans for territorial forest environmental regulations, which are understood as the national incorporation of the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples. Such plans are a key tool in the planning and design of projects that integrate the needs and priorities of Indigenous communities, strengthening their participation in the management of their territories. Through such plans, Indigenous Peoples identify projects that not only aim at sustainable development, but also respect for ancestral knowledge about ecosystem management. Such planning allows traditional knowledge to be incorporated into the decision-making process, ensuring that projects are aligned with the world view and way of life of Indigenous communities.

The Spanish Agency for Development Cooperation includes an Indigenous programme that supports the participation of Indigenous Peoples through the Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. Spain also supports the voluntary fund that has been set up within the World Intellectual Property Organization to support the participation of Indigenous Peoples in debates about the recently adopted Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge.⁴⁸ Spain also supports the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems.

48. See “WIPO Member States adopt historic new treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge”, 24 May 2024. ↩

In an article in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Laura Spitz and Eduardo M. Peñalver describe the problems of recognizing the Whanganui River as a legal entity in New Zealand at the request of the Whanganui iwi people: “It was a negotiated land claim settlement between the New Zealand Crown and the Whanganui iwi people, not a judicial settlement. … Finally, the designation of personhood rested on the acceptance and use of Māori legal and cultural practices as opposed to traditional common law doctrine. From the Māori perspective, the river is an ancestor, a fundamentally different concept from persons in the common law sense”.⁴⁹ Similarly, Ella Flavell, writing for the Earth Law Center, describes how “Indigenous leaders from across Polynesia including Aotearoa (New Zealand), Tonga, Tahiti, Hawai’i, and the Cook Islands signed He Whakaputanga Moana (Declaration for the Ocean), recognizing whales as legal persons with inherent rights”.⁵⁰

49. See Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 and Laura Spitz and Eduardo M. Peñalver, “Nature’s personhood and property's virtues”, Harvard Environmental Law Review, vol. 45, No. 1 (2021). ↩
50. Ella Flavell, “Polynesia advances whale personhood in legal frameworks”, Earth Law Center, 2 July 2024. ↩

Indigenous Peoples use storytelling to explain their solidarity with the environment.⁵¹ Solidarity circles are created within Indigenous communities to support microfinance lending to Indigenous communities who seek to develop their property but lack collateral.⁵²

51. Jessica Chaplain, “Storytelling and worldmaking climate justice futures: Indigenous climate advocacy and transnational solidarity in UN climate conferences”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 110, No. 3 (2024). ↩
52. Caroline E. Schuster, “Reconciling debt: microcredit and the politics of indigeneity in Argentina’s Altiplano”, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol. 33, No. 1 (May 2010). ↩

The authors of an article on Indigenous solidarity regarding marine resources describe an example of inter-Indigenous solidarity in Canada that went beyond signed agreements, involving the collaboration (in the form of phone calls, meetings, partnerships and celebrations) between hereditary and elected heads of Indigenous nations, individuals and organizations to secure united control of herring habitat and decision-making on harvesting.⁵³ According to the authors, that network of Indigenous collaborators reinforced the idea that contemporary inter-Indigenous solidarity functioned to generate and inspire ways to decolonize Indigenous resources and illustrated emergent revolutionary processes that were transformative, dynamic and creative, and that reconstructed and redeployed Indigenous culture and tradition.

53. Suzanne von der Porten, Jeff Corntassel and Devi Mucina. “Indigenous nationhood and herring governance: strategies for the reassertion of Indigenous authority and inter-Indigenous solidarity regarding marine resources”, AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, vol. 15, No. 1 (March 2019). ↩

In the same article, the authors identified treaties between Indigenous Peoples that pursued solidarity to address common challenges. They described how in the declaration of solidarity over herring of British Columbia, the Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais, and Nuu-chah-nulth nations stated that the declaration was a statement of solidarity based upon their inherent rights to manage their marine resources and that it reaffirmed their rights and title, and their sovereignty over their land, seas and resources. They suggested that the agreements illustrated how such Indigenous nations were positioning themselves both in mutual solidarity and with the authorities of their lands and resources. As a result, those nations were answering the broader need for more dialogue and exchange of ideas between Indigenous Peoples worldwide.⁵⁴

54. Ibid. ↩

In the article, the authors argued that in the context of marine resources, or environmental governance more broadly, Indigenous nations could potentially advance goals such as nationhood, self-determination and inherent rights to governance of traditional territories by organizing or collaborating with other Indigenous nations. They concluded that Indigenous solidarity was strengthened by information and communications technology (ICT), including Internet, social media blogs, email, videos and telephone, as well as improved travel options. The Independent Expert agrees that the impact of ICT and its infrastructure is an essential element of strengthening inter-Indigenous international solidarity and supports increased access and education for Indigenous Peoples around the world.

Indigenous Peoples and minorities often share similar concerns regarding racism, stereotyping, hate speech, discrimination, marginalization and exclusion. In an article on the oppression of native Hawaiians, David Barnard supported the adoption of narrative perspectives on the rights of Indigenous Peoples on the international stage in solidarity with other peoples, noting that: “On that stage, amplified by the parallel stories of other peoples who have experienced colonial domination, the native voice is louder, its timbre richer, its claim to attention more insistent”.⁵⁵

55. See David Barnard, “Law, narrative, and the continuing colonialist oppression of native Hawaiians”, Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, vol. 16 (Fall 2006). See also Clare Land, Decolonizing Solidarity: Dilemmas and Directions for Supporters of Indigenous Struggles (London, Zed Books, 2015). ↩

In an article from 2019 in the Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Nadia Ben-Youssef identified the intersectoral elements of solidarity movements and explained the transcendental power of such movements:
Movements for Black liberation, freedom for Palestine, Indigenous self-determination, queer justice, and immigrant rights are intentionally interconnecting and building a global struggle. Individuals and communities travel to encounter each other, walk the land together, and coalesce around shared future visions. When the Movement for Black Lives released its political platform for Black Power, Freedom, and Justice in 2016, ending Israeli oppression in Palestine was a key policy demand. When the Red Nation, a radical Indigenous collective, hosted its annual conference in 2018, international solidarity with the Palestinian freedom struggle was a grounding principle. And when a Palestinian delegation travelled to Washington, DC in the spring of 2019 to meet with new members of Congress, they journeyed with a historic US civil rights and racial justice organization (the Center for Constitutional Rights, where I currently serve as Advocacy Director). The delegation embodied the united vision and demand that oppressors relinquish power and join the pursuit of Equality, freedom and justice for all.⁵⁶

56. Nadia Ben-Youssef, “Engaging the oppressor within”, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, No. 20 (January 2019). ↩

Ms. Ben-Youssef also explains the transcendental power of intersectional social movements:
A red line has been drawn, and sides are clear: resist colonization, racism, and any differing value of human life, or bolster and benefit from structural inequality. There is no middle ground, and there are no exceptions. And herein lies the revolutionary potential of cross-movement building: the necessity of developing an intersectional praxis. To coalesce around a shared future vision and joint struggle for liberation requires individual confrontation with complicity in oppression. Solidarity, the practice of love, demands a reckoning with power. When we bind ourselves to the flourishing of others, we must heal the harm we cause, and reject the limitation we impose on their potential. Oppression cannot withstand this essential, emancipatory engagement, and so we must commit to nothing less.⁵⁷

57. Ibid. ↩

Nevertheless, in an article in the National Black Law Journal, Bryonn Bain was circumspect regarding the challenge of forging intersectoral solidarity, stating that:
The historic conversation that follows calls on social justice movement builders to embrace a radical vision of solidarity between not only Black and Brown communities, but between all communities oppressed or under attack: women, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ folks, and those currently or formerly incarcerated, to name a few of the most recently targeted. … this 20th century framework must be reimagined to include Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian American communities. It is far from inevitable, however, that these communities will be able to build interracial coalitions.⁵⁸

58. Bryonn Bain, “Rad talk: The radical solidarity of Dolores Huerta and Harry Belafonte”. He cites Ulrich Steinworth. ↩

In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the NGO Ayni focused on local healthcare and education through “interculturality,” a concept promoted by the Movimiento al Socialismo 55 See David Barnard, “Law, narrative, and the continuing colonialist oppression of native Hawaiians”, Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, vol. 16 (Fall 2006). See also Clare Land, Decolonizing Solidarity: Dilemmas and Directions for Supporters of Indigenous Struggles (London, Zed Books, 2015). 56 Nadia Ben-Youssef, “Engaging the oppressor within”, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, No. 20 (January 2019). 57 Ibid. 58 Bryonn Bain, “Rad talk: The radical solidarity of Dolores Huerta and Harry Belafonte”. He cites Ulrich Steinworth. GE.25-07689 and its allies, intended to convey a process of mutual cultural influence and solidarity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.⁵⁹

59. See Miriam Shakow “The peril and promise of noodles and beer: Condemnation of patronage and hybrid political frameworks in ‘post-neoliberal’ Cochabamba, Bolivia”, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol. 34, No. 2 (November 2011). ↩

The Pou Tikanga National Iwi Chairs’ Forum provided input that described Māori support for Palestine as an example of solidarity.⁶⁰

60. See submission received. ↩

The increase in political violence and armed conflict, and the militarization of societies has resulted in a real risk of forced migration among Indigenous Peoples in both the global North and South. Indigenous Peoples are also at risk of forced conscription and detention after migration (due to their citizenship rather than ethnic identity). For example, there are Indigenous Peoples from Ukraine and Sami who are in detention in Scandinavian countries after crossing borders on account of the war in Ukraine. The lack of access of effective remedies to protect Indigenous Peoples from these harms underscores the urgency of applying an international solidarity perspective to provide protection.⁶¹ As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, they experience discrimination due to their own mobility and this can provide a foundation for solidarity with migrants:
Transboundary mobile Indigenous Peoples have inherent mobility rights based on historical patterns of movement between and across borders that predate the formation of nation States. With the demarcation of national boundaries, mobile Indigenous Peoples found themselves separated by borders and divided between States, subjecting them to immigration restrictions and cutting off access to rangelands, forests and marine areas. They are often categorized as migrants after crossing into another State’s territory. Tension between States creates further instability, forcing migration across borders and increasing the risk of exposure to armed conflict, human smuggling and drug trafficking. A lack of understanding about mobility has created statelessness among mobile Indigenous Peoples and the failure to recognize their multinationality limits the exercise of their fundamental rights.⁶²

61. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Minorities and indigenous peoples”, emergency handbook (January 2025). ↩
62. A/79/160, para. 60. ↩

Indeed, the Committee on Migrant Workers has called upon one State to implement solidarity by taking urgent measures to protect Indigenous communities that are forced to migrate and grant them access to basic services, a good education and health.⁶³ Furthermore, it recommended the creation of a special programme to provide migration guidance to Indigenous communities, with their voluntary consent, so that they were familiar with their rights and obligations in their own language and were made aware of the support that their country could offer them.⁶⁴ The Kabyle people reported solidarity support for Ukrainian refugees in 2022.⁶⁵ Some Indigenous people in Africa expressed concern that States allowed refugees and internally displaced persons to reside in territories belonging to Indigenous Peoples, resulting in tension.⁶⁶

63. CMW/C/GTM/CO/2, para. 27. ↩
64. Ibid. ↩
65. See submission received. ↩
66. Oral contribution from video consultation. ↩

In an article on immigration, Monika Batra Kashyap described how Indigenous and immigrant solidarity movements engaged in acts of resistance within the settler-colonial societies of Australia, Canada and the United States.⁶⁷ Examples of solidarity acts of resistance include the Australian aboriginal passport ceremony, in which over 200 immigrants received aboriginal passports after signing a pledge recognizing the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.⁶⁸ That combined the provision of sanctuary to asylum-seekers while recognizing aboriginal sovereignty and self-determination. Another example is the Canadian No One is Illegal Group that protests against tourism, mining and real estate development on Indigenous lands and calls for accountability for the murder of Indigenous women and for the reclamation of land.⁶⁹ In the United States, Indigenous and tribal leaders criticized the Government’s practice of separating immigrant children from their families as a reincarnation of the practice of forcibly sending Indigenous children to boarding schools.

67. Monika Batra Kashyap, “Unsettling immigration laws: Settler colonialism and the U.S. immigration legal system”, Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 46, No. 3 (2019). ↩
68. Ibid. ↩
69. See Craig Fortier, “No one is illegal, Canada is illegal! Negotiating the relationships between settler colonialism and border imperialism through political slogans”, Decolonization, 21 September 2015. ↩

An example of intersectoral solidarity that has strengthened the emancipatory messaging of Indigenous and tribal groups is provided in an article on solidarity in the face of an executive order of the President of the United States banning travel from a number of Muslim-majority countries:
After the president issued an executive order banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries, indigenous activists joined hundreds of others in protest, but they also used the occasion to reassert their priority and to challenge settler constructions of national belonging. At the Los Angeles airport, white Americans sang the national anthem and renditions of This Land Is Your Land – songs intended to appeal to a sense of patriotism and multicultural inclusivity – the Tongva, the original inhabitants of what is now Los Angeles, played drums as they performed a traditional welcome ceremony. Nick Estes and Melanie Yazzie, indigenous activists and scholars, marched behind the Tongva, holding placards that read “No Ban on Stolen Land,” and “Refugees Welcome on Native Land,” at once inviting identification and solidarity among the nation’s outsiders and reasserting sovereignty over land and questions of migration.⁷⁰

70. Sherally Munshu, “Unsettling the border”, UCLA Law Review, vol. 67, No. 6 (April 2021). See also Cheryl Suzack, “Reckoning with Indigenous solidarity”, American Literary History, vol. 33, No. 1 (2021); and Jonah Francese, “Language revitalization through Indigenous Mexican hip hop: building towards an Indigenous hip hop futurism” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 45, No. 1 (2024). ↩

In an article for an international law symposium, Esmeralda López and Melissa Hastings support involving Indigenous communities in the protection of migrants, stating that:
Despite the limited ability of indigenous justice systems to provide protection to NTCA [Northern Triangle of Central America, composed of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras] migrant women, indigenous rights groups in Mexico can assist with this humanitarian crisis. While unity and solidarity are often the result of an ethnic group living in the same place, some indigenous rights organizations operating in other issue areas, such as the Assembly of Indigenous Migrants in Mexico, include indigenous persons from various ethnic groups. UNHCR and the Mexican government should engage inclusive indigenous groups in the provision of services to NTCA migrants. Indigenous groups could provide outreach and “Know Your Rights” presentations to indigenous migrant women in detention centers. These groups could further identify additional protection concerns for indigenous migrants that might otherwise be overlooked.⁷¹

71. Esmeralda López and Melissa Hastings, “Overlooked and unprotected: Central American Indigenous migrant women in Mexico”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 48, No. 4 (2016). ↩

The International Indigenous Women’s Forum provides a platform across all regions for Indigenous women to share ideas and support each other. It provides leadership training and supports development projects. It is notable that Canada has an Indigenous Women’s Circle to promote the participation of indigenous women in governance. It has also established the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, which created the Indigenous Women’s Entrepreneur Program to support Indigenous women in building or growing their businesses through workshops, mentorship programmes and microloans.

Indigenous women’s associations include the Federación de Mujeres Indígenas Kukama Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana, which led the judicial process to have the River Marañon recognized as a rights holder by the courts. Indigenous People were identified as guardians of the river to protect biodiversity and the lives of future generations.⁷² The Paktuutit Inuit Women of Canada⁷³ partner with Les Femmes Michifs Otipemisiwak, which represents Metis Indigenous women, and participated in the Feminist Forum with organizations representing black women, Muslim women and women with disabilities. Ofelia Schutte advocates uniting feminist, environmental and Indigenous concerns in a common solidarity exchange: “The support for Indigenous rights requires a transvaluation of colonial values and a restructuring of social and economic relations in Latin American societies, including a restructuring of the value given to ecological and gender issues. In return, we need to communicate to Indigenous Peoples why we in the West fight for various liberatory causes, such as feminism and women’s rights. The first step is to build trust so that there can be meaningful dialogue”.⁷⁴

72. See https://huaynakana-kukama.org/noticias/huaynakana-lidera-talleres-de-fortalecimiento-y-difusion-de-la-sentencia-que-reconoce-los-derechos-del-rio-maranon/ (in Spanish). ↩
73. See Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Inuit Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People (2021). ↩
74. Ofelia Schutte, “Indigenous issues and the ethics of dialogue in LatCrit theory”, Rutgers Law Review, vol. 54 (Summer 2002). ↩

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued concluding recommendations to the Plurinational State of Bolivia, calling upon it to ensure that Indigenous women had access to education.⁷⁵ Education is essential for ensuring the participation and leadership of Indigenous women in international solidarity actions and policies.

75. CEDAW/C/BOL/CO/5-6, para. 25. ↩

Indigenous Peoples from all regions reported lower levels of healthcare, in particular maternal healthcare, high suicide rates, domestic violence, lower levels of education and literacy, high school drop-out rates and poor housing and food insecurity, including lack of access to clean water, heating and sanitation facilities. Many Indigenous Peoples do not have road access to distant schools and health centres and often lack access to the digital infrastructure that is necessary for access to digital education and healthcare. Indigenous Peoples risk being trapped in poverty due to a lack of vocational training, education and employment opportunities.

Bilingual education is offered in some countries (for example, Argentina, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and the United States) in order to preserve cultural heritage, teach the cosmovision and respect the ethnic identity of Indigenous children and youth. In practice, however, such programmes risk being limited by cuts in human and economic resources, in spite of being recognized in national legislation.

In Burundi, the Initiative for the Promotion of Batwa Education for Sustainable Development advocates for the implementation of free education for Batwa children, eliminating school fees and ensuring that even the most marginalized can access basic education.⁷⁶ 76 Furthermore, through policies promoting positive discrimination, Batwa students are admitted to high school automatically when they complete year nine. 72 See https://huaynakana-kukama.org/noticias/huaynakana-lidera-talleres-de-fortalecimiento-ydifusion-de-la-sentencia-que-reconoce-los-derechos-del-rio-maranon/ (in Spanish). 73 See Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Inuit Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People (2021). 74 Ofelia Schutte, “Indigenous issues and the ethics of dialogue in LatCrit theory”, Rutgers Law Review, vol. 54 (Summer 2002). 75 CEDAW/C/BOL/CO/5-6, para. 25. 76 Online consultation. GE.25-07689

76. Online consultation. ↩

The Government of India provides scholarships to tribal students at the secondary, higher secondary, undergraduate, post-graduate and doctoral levels, including study abroad.⁷⁷ The Government of Guatemala also reported the provision of university scholarships for Indigenous men and women, pursuant to the Agenda Nacional de Autoridades Indígenas y Ancestrales.⁷⁸ The Government of Honduras offers scholarships to Indigenous peoples for higher education.⁷⁹ In Nepal, there is an MA programme in Indigenous education and development at Kathmandu University.⁸⁰ In Canada, the First Nations University offers programmes in Indigenous languages, education, social work, science, Indigenous studies, and business and public administration. Canada also supports Indigenous students in their pursuit of post-secondary education through a distinctions-based post-secondary education strategy for First Nations, Inuit and Metis Nation students. Some Indigenous groups have criticized the distinctions-based policy as prioritizing the three national Indigenous organizations over others, thereby proving exclusionary.⁸¹ The Government of Canada provides direct funding assistance and complementary programmes and services, including support for students with disabilities and dependents. The Inuit Nunangat University may serve as a model for establishing an international Indigenous university.

77. See submission by the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations Office and other international organizations at Geneva. ↩
78. See https://agn.gt/gobierno-del-presidente-arevalo-reafirma-compromiso-con-los-pueblos-indigenas/. ↩
79. See submission by the Government of Honduras. ↩
80. https://soed.ku.edu.np/program/master-in-indigenous-education-and-development. ↩
81. See submission by Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. ↩

In the United States, Columbia University offers a two-week course on the rights of and policy for Indigenous Peoples, while Stanford University in California and the University of Utah support a Latin American Indigenous Language Alliance, and the University of Florida offer an Indigenous Studies specialization. Similarly in South Africa, the University of Pretoria offers a course on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Norway, the Sami University of Applied Sciences provides teaching in the Sami language to students from Finland, the Russian Federation and Sweden. It combines Sami traditional knowledge with academic and scientific knowledge to give instruction in teaching, journalism, language, literature and fine arts. In Costa Rica, the University for Peace offers an MA programme in Indigenous science and peace studies.⁸²

82. MA Indigenous Science and Peace Studies – UPEACE. ↩

The Government of Spain supports a programme at the Carlos III University of Madrid to create a postgraduate degree in Indigenous Peoples, human rights, and international cooperation that is earmarked for Indigenous leaders, representatives and activists in Ibero-America.⁸³ It has educated over 500 Indigenous persons, who have gone on to work in government, international organizations, NGOs, companies and academia.

83. See submission by the Government of Spain. ↩

Indigenous Peoples are eager to receive education on how to implement the free, prior and informed consent standard to enable them to participate in negotiations with States and companies seeking to invest in their territories. That indicates the saliency of supporting legal education as well as training in corporate sustainability. Representatives of Indigenous Peoples have expressed interest in the establishment of an international Indigenous university, while others have indicated a preference for increased access to national universities.

Artificial intelligence can be utilized to promote cultural heritage solidarity by recording and disseminating traditional knowledge and cultural expression for younger generations, ranging from agriculture and astronomy to medicine and music. It can help to protect Indigenous languages and land rights by assisting in combating environmental risks, such as deforestation. The challenge is to guarantee Indigenous participation in the collection, interpretation and use of their voices, images, representations, knowledge, techniques and symbolic and linguistic systems to avoid misappropriation.⁸⁴ Nevertheless, many Indigenous Peoples around the world lack basic access to artificial intelligence, lack digital literacy and risk being subject to online hate speech, limiting their ability to pursue solidarity initiatives. It is notable that Canada supports small-scale Indigenous initiatives and projects related to intellectual property in order to increase the awareness and improve the education of Indigenous Peoples.

84. See UNESCO, Inteligencia Artificial centrada en los Pueblos Indígenas: Perspectivas desde América Latina y el Caribe (2023). ↩

Indigenous Peoples are important international solidarity leaders – they demonstrate how a correct interpretation of human rights-based Indigenous solidarity requires respect for the environment; they extend solidarity support to other groups in situations of vulnerability, such as migrants and minorities; and they reveal the urgency of creating transparent, accessible mechanisms to communicate solidarity demands to corporations that are active within their territories. The construction of a global Indigenous Peoples solidarity movement could prove to be a counter to the trend towards multipolarity, as Indigenous Peoples could show leadership in emphasizing the urgency of peaceful resolution of conflicts, mutual respect among all peoples and protection of those most vulnerable, as well as confirming the primacy of safeguarding Mother Earth in unity according to the Indigenous world view. The following recommendations are offered for international solidarity policies that respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

States should:
(a) Officially recognize Indigenous Peoples within their territories and ensure that the land participation rights of Indigenous Peoples is recognized by law to ensure their rights are protected and fulfilled. Refrain from conflating local communities with Indigenous Peoples;
(b) Adopt and implement legislation that recognizes the duty to uphold the right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent on any decision that may affect their lives;
(c) In conjunction with private companies, respect free, prior and informed consent, and provide transparent, effective communication mechanisms to enable Indigenous Peoples to communicate solidarity demands regarding human rights, labour rights or environmental rights;
(d) Aim to facilitate the reunion of Indigenous Peoples who have migrated on account of conflict, armed violence or persecution with other members of their people;
(e) Refrain from placing refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons in Indigenous territories without the consent of the Indigenous Peoples;
(f) Refrain from promoting polarizing political policies that prevent Indigenous Peoples from enjoying solidarity with minority groups or other stakeholders;
(g) Include Indigenous delegates in international and regional forums on international law, human rights and environmental topics, including United Nations meetings and processes, and provide, in conjunction with corporations, Indigenous Peoples with the infrastructure and other support to enable them to share international solidarity ideas online on social media, television and radio;
(h) Provide scholarships to facilitate the admission of Indigenous people to law schools and in particular give them access to courses on corporate sustainability law to ensure they are competent to address free, prior and informed consent standards in situations involving corporate investment within their territories. That education should be complemented with Indigenous knowledge of their territories and the environment;
(i) Pursue full due diligence accountability processes for cases involving the assassination of Indigenous defenders of land rights and the environment due to their engagement in solidarity actions.

The international community should:
(a) Expand the network of Indigenous and communitarian universities and seek funding to establish an international Indigenous university;
(b) Increase its support for Indigenous women to pursue education to become solidarity leaders for their communities;
(c) Raise funds to facilitate international solidarity exchanges between the Indigenous Peoples of the global North and South.

Media and artificial intelligence corporations should eliminate exclusion and misrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples, including discriminatory representation, hate speech and stereotypes that foment marginalization, alienation and violence.

States and artificial intelligence companies should create inclusive processes for Indigenous Peoples to collect and share their collective heritage (including language, design and medicinal knowledge) with younger generations, guaranteeing their participation with their consent and with respect for the rights to privacy and intellectual property.

Universities and schools should incorporate an Indigenous world view curriculum to ensure inclusion of their perspectives on solidarity.

The reunification of Indigenous Peoples after migration should be facilitated by Governments, as well as local, regional and global actors, with the support of the International Organization for Migration and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.