{"title":"金砖国家的土著人民保护体系:法律和诉讼支持概述","authors":"Elena Gladun, Maksim Zadorin","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-121-141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of the international obligations of the BRICS member states related to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, as well as discusses the current trends in the ethno-national policies of those countries. The authors arrive at the conclusion that though the majority of the BRICS states are parties to the basic human rights agreements, there is no full-fledged agreement on the protection of indigenous peoples within the BRICS framework specifically addressing the rights of indigenous people, even though the countries collectively have aboriginal communities. One of the primary and major reasons why the BRICS countries are reluctant to assume obligations under the existing agreements compared to the Euro-Atlantic bloc of Western states is the motley ethno-cultural “palette” of these countries, which complicates public administration in this area of legal relations. Both India and China are state parties to the International Labor Organization Convention 107, which provides for “paternalism” and “integration” of the indigenous population without explicitly recognizing their “right to self-determination” and development within the framework of this right. The main problems associated with ethnopolitics in the BRICS countries are those pertaining to the provision of legal frameworks and litigation support to uphold the right to self-identification, protection of the native language and the preservation of traditional uses of natural resources.","PeriodicalId":41782,"journal":{"name":"BRICS Law Journal","volume":"55 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The System of Indigenous Peoples’ Protection in BRICS States: An Overview of Legal and Litigation Support\",\"authors\":\"Elena Gladun, Maksim Zadorin\",\"doi\":\"10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-121-141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article provides an overview of the international obligations of the BRICS member states related to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, as well as discusses the current trends in the ethno-national policies of those countries. The authors arrive at the conclusion that though the majority of the BRICS states are parties to the basic human rights agreements, there is no full-fledged agreement on the protection of indigenous peoples within the BRICS framework specifically addressing the rights of indigenous people, even though the countries collectively have aboriginal communities. One of the primary and major reasons why the BRICS countries are reluctant to assume obligations under the existing agreements compared to the Euro-Atlantic bloc of Western states is the motley ethno-cultural “palette” of these countries, which complicates public administration in this area of legal relations. Both India and China are state parties to the International Labor Organization Convention 107, which provides for “paternalism” and “integration” of the indigenous population without explicitly recognizing their “right to self-determination” and development within the framework of this right. The main problems associated with ethnopolitics in the BRICS countries are those pertaining to the provision of legal frameworks and litigation support to uphold the right to self-identification, protection of the native language and the preservation of traditional uses of natural resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BRICS Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"55 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BRICS Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-121-141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRICS Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-121-141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The System of Indigenous Peoples’ Protection in BRICS States: An Overview of Legal and Litigation Support
This article provides an overview of the international obligations of the BRICS member states related to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, as well as discusses the current trends in the ethno-national policies of those countries. The authors arrive at the conclusion that though the majority of the BRICS states are parties to the basic human rights agreements, there is no full-fledged agreement on the protection of indigenous peoples within the BRICS framework specifically addressing the rights of indigenous people, even though the countries collectively have aboriginal communities. One of the primary and major reasons why the BRICS countries are reluctant to assume obligations under the existing agreements compared to the Euro-Atlantic bloc of Western states is the motley ethno-cultural “palette” of these countries, which complicates public administration in this area of legal relations. Both India and China are state parties to the International Labor Organization Convention 107, which provides for “paternalism” and “integration” of the indigenous population without explicitly recognizing their “right to self-determination” and development within the framework of this right. The main problems associated with ethnopolitics in the BRICS countries are those pertaining to the provision of legal frameworks and litigation support to uphold the right to self-identification, protection of the native language and the preservation of traditional uses of natural resources.
期刊介绍:
The BRICS is an acronym for an association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, evolved from mere investment lingo to an organized network, in the process assuming a greater geopolitical role aimed at institutional reforms that shift global power. All five countries adhere to principles of inclusive macroeconomic and social policies and are focusing on responsible national growth strategies. The BRICS Law Journal is a platform for relevant comparative research and legal development not only in and between the BRICS countries themselves but also between those countries and others. The journal is an open forum for legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on issues that are relevant to the BRICS and internationally significant. Prospective authors who are involved in relevant legal research, legal writing and legal development are, therefore, the main source of potential contributions.