Fourth World Nations in the United Nations?

ROAD SAFETY: A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

This chapter deals with developments towards the recognition of the right to an effective remedy as lay down in international instruments, with emphasis on the normative content of this right. Special attention will be given to the United Nations (UN) Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for the Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law , adopted in their final form by the UN General Assembly in 2005 and marking a milestone in the lengthy process towards the framing of victim-orientated policies and practices. The International law commission Articles on State Responsibility were referred to as setting out legal consequences in terms of obligations of a State to stop wrongs attributable to that State and to repair the harm done to injured parties. Keywords: International Human Rights Law; International Humanitarian Law; International Instruments; State responsibility; United Nations (UN) general assembly

At the 51st Session of the United Nations (UN) Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on 25th June 2018, the final draft of the Convention on the Enforcement of International Settlement Agreements (the ‘Convention’) was recommended for submission to the UN General Assembly for its consideration, and the corresponding Model Law was adopted. A resolution to name the Convention the ‘Singapore Convention on Mediation’ was also approved. This concluded three years of vigorous debate in UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) with participation by 85 member States and 35 international governmental and non-governmental organisations. The UN General Assembly has adopted the Convention on 20th December 2018. The Convention will come into force once it is ratified by at least three member states. A signing ceremony for this first UN Convention on mediation is anticipated to take place in Singapore in August 2019.

Cancer has become the second leading cause of death worldwide (Ferlay et al. 2008). Almost 13 million persons are diagnosed each year with cancer, and 7.6 million die (Ferlay et al. 2010). Today more than half of all cancers and 63% of cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a burden that is expected to grow in future years as the “Western lifestyle” spreads and the number of persons in LMICs who live to old age continues to increase (Ferlay et al. 2010). Toxic exposures in the environment, including workplace exposures, are responsible for a substantial percentage of all cancers (Danaei et al. 2005 Christiani 2011). Precise apportionment is not possible because of gaps in the exposure data, interactions between environmental and lifestyle carcinogens, and differences from country to country in exposure patterns (Pruss-Ustun and Corvalan 2006). However, credible estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO 2009) and the Internation Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Straif 2008) suggest that the fraction of global cancer currently attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. Asbestos, silica, arsenic, and radon are among the most common environmental carcinogens. All are considered proven causes of human cancer by IARC (El Ghissassi et al. 2009; Straif et al. 2009). Exposures to all remain widespread and are especially intense and uncontrolled in LMICs. Asbestos, for example, continues to be produced and used in quantities of nearly 2 million tons per year (U.S. Geological Survey 2011). While its use in Western Europe, the United States, and Canada has virtually ceased, export to the developing world is aggressively marketed and steadily increasing (Allen and Kazan-Allen 2008). For example, between 2000 and 2007, India’s consumption of asbestos is reported to have doubled (Burki 2010). Many cancers caused by environmental and occupational exposures can be prevented (Christiani 2011). Primary prevention—environmental interventions that halt the exposures that cause cancer—is the single most effective strategy. Primary prevention reduces cancer incidence, and it saves lives and billions of dollars. Successful examples include reductions in lung cancer and mesothelioma following bans on asbestos, reductions in bladder cancer after elimination of aniline dyes, reductions in leukemia following imposition of controls on benzene, and termination of hepatic angiosarcoma in chemical workers following introduction of closed-circuit technology for vinyl chloride polymerization (Christiani 2011). Despite their proven feasibility and cost-effectiveness, efforts to prevent environmental cancers have lagged. In contrast to vigorous and well-coordinated global efforts to prevent cancers caused by tobacco (WHO 2003), much more needs to be done in environmental cancer control and to further develop strategies for prevention of environmental causes of cancer (WHO 2008). To address these gaps and to develop a new global policy framework for environmental cancer, the WHO convened an international conference on “Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention” in Asturias, Spain, on 17–18 March 2011. The conference produced the “Asturias Declaration” (WHO International Conference on Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention 2011), which recommends that primary prevention of environmental and occupational cancers be an integral component of global cancer control. Specific recommendations of the declaration include the following: The WHO should develop a global framework for control of environmental and occupational carcinogens that concentrates on the exposures identified by IARC as proven or probable causes of human cancer (IARC 2011). The WHO should develop measurable indicators of carcinogen exposure and cancer burden to guide cancer surveillance worldwide. All countries need to adopt and enforce legislation and regulations to protect their populations, especially the most vulnerable (pregnant women, fetuses, infants, children, and workers) against environmental and occupational cancers. All countries need to develop communication campaigns tailored to local needs to educate their populations about environmental causes of cancer and prevention strategies. Corporations should comply with all rules and regulations for prevention of environmental and occupational cancers and adhere to the same standards in all countries—developed and developing—in which they and their subsidiaries operate. Conference participants agreed that successful prevention of environmental cancer will require partnerships among countries and collaborations of public health authorities with ministries of environment, labor, finance, and trade. In addition, independent, publicly funded research on environmental and occupational causes of cancer is an essential prerequisite to prevention (Tomatis 1995). The recommendations made by the participants in the “Asturias Declaration” complement and reinforce cancer control strategies focused on individual behaviors and medical practice. They will contribute to prevention of diseases beyond cancer and therefore synergize with the United Nations (UN) global agenda for control of noncommunicable diseases that is to be discussed at the UN General Assembly in September 2011 (UN General Assembly 2010). These recommendations will also prevent recurrence of such tragedies as the global asbestos epidemic, which now claims > 100,000 lives each year.

The international attention increasingly being paid to Indigenous peoples culminated in the 2007 adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations General Assembly. Nevertheless, the lack of accurate and consistent data on Indigenous peoples hinders the creation of concrete benchmarks and monitoring mechanisms for their development. Based on the most recent census questionnaires available for 231 countries and regions for which the United Nations Statistics Division collects statistics, this study identifies the proportion and geographic distribution of questionnaires that enumerated Indigenous peoples and variations in the questions used to enumerate them. The fact is that relatively few census questionnaires enumerate Indigenous peoples. Where they were enumerated, Indigenous cultures and identities were homogenized by many censuses, and classified as minorities rather than as distinct peoples. As a result, Indigenous peoples remain invisible in large areas of the globe and the United Nations, various governmental and non-governmental organizations, and Indigenous people themselves all face overwhelming challenges in their attempts to document the existence and circumstances of Indigenous peoples.

This chapter focuses on the rights to identity, existence, and non-assimilation in Articles 7(2), 8, and 43, which together enshrine rights to the protection of indigenous peoples' continued survival and existence, both physically as individuals and as cultural entities in accordance with levels of human dignity and well-being. Indigenous peoples pressed for the inclusion of such principles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the recognition that pre-existing international, regional, and national laws had failed to protect their survival as communities with distinct cultures, or recognise them as distinct peoples. The three provisions studied in this chapter reflect this central concern of indigenous group/cultural survival and flourishing as peoples. As such, the final agreed text of Articles 7(2), 8, and 43 must be seen as containing norms aimed at the development of existing international law, which would protect and confirm indigenous collectivities in ways not currently recognised or only now emerging.

Introduction Indigenous communities in Indonesia remain among the most vulnerable actors in natural resource governance despite constitutional recognition of their customary rights. Their marginalization is exacerbated by overlapping land claims, fragmented regulations, and limited representation in decision-making. This study analyses how governance law addresses these vulnerabilities and identifies legal–institutional pathways for stronger protection. Methods A qualitative design was employed. We conducted a thematic analysis of five core policy and legal documents and triangulated insights with reports from non-governmental and international organizations. A comparative review of global instruments—the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169—was used to benchmark Indonesian frameworks against international norms. Results Findings show that Indonesia’s legal pluralism remains weakly integrated, producing persistent uncertainty over the recognition of customary territories and inconsistent safeguards across sectors and jurisdictions. Institutional roles are diffuse, administrative procedures for recognizing customary communities and lands are uneven, and remedies for rights violations are limited. These gaps collectively sustain a protection deficit in resource governance. Discussion The study advances governance-law scholarship by proposing an integrated model that harmonizes state and customary systems through clear institutional mechanisms, standardized recognition procedures, and coordinated oversight. Aligning domestic rules with UNDRIP and ILO 169 principles would reduce normative fragmentation, clarify tenure security, and enhance participation. Policy implications include establishing a specialized national Indigenous Tribunal to deliver accessible adjudication and creating a unified land registration framework that formally records customary tenure. Together, these measures can promote more inclusive and sustainable resource governance in Indonesia and offer a transferable approach for other developing countries facing similar plural legal orders.

How and why does the Group of 20 (G20) work, both alone and together with the United Nations (UN), to advance the effective global governance of climate change, especially in 2021 and beyond? G20 summit performance on climate change has increased since 2008 as measured by the six major dimensions of governance, but not by the results in net emissions reduced. G20 efforts to spur performance at subsequent UN climate summits has varied, from substantial at G20 Pittsburgh for UN Copenhagen in 2009, to limited at G20 Antalya for UN Paris in 2015, and to strong at G20 Rome for UN Glasgow in 2021. G20 efforts have been spurred by the physical climate shockactivated vulnerabilities experienced by G20 members in the lead-up to G20 and UN summits, especially from escalating extreme weather events, but have been constrained by diversionary shocks from finance in 2008–09, terrorism and migration in 2015, and COVID-19 in 2020–21. Also important were the personal commitments of, and domestic political support within, G20 and UN summit hosts, especially regarding the G20 and UN summits uniquely chaired by Group of 7 (G7) members Italy and the United Kingdom in 2021. Yet, the unprecedented combined G20-UN supply of global climate governance in 2021 fell even further behind the proliferating global demand to control climate change. To close the gap, the G20 should invite the heads of the major multilateral environmental organizations to participate in G20 summits, hold more environment ministers’ meetings each year, and mount an annual climate-focused summit at the UN General Assembly.

Throughout the world, indigenous peoples have advocated for the right to retain their cultural beliefs and traditional medicine practices. In 2007, the more than 370 million people representing 5000 distinct groups throughout the world received global recognition with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP Article 24 affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional medicines and health practices, and to all social and health services. Although not a legally binding agreement, UNDRIP encourages nation states to comply and implement measures to support and uphold its provisions. Within the context of indigenous health and human rights, Nicaragua serves as a unique case study for examining implementation of UNDRIP Article 24 provisions due to the changes in the Nicaraguan Constitution that strive for the overarching goal of affirming an equal right to health for all Nicaraguans and supporting the integration of traditional medicine and biomedicine at a national and regional level. To explore this subject further, we conducted a review of the policy impact of UNDRIP on health services accessible to the Miskitu indigenous peoples of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN). We found that although measures to create therapeutic cooperation are woven into Nicaraguan health plans at the national and regional level, in practice, the delivery of integrated health services has been implemented with varying results. Our review suggests that the method of policy implementation and efforts to foster intercultural collaborative approaches involving respectful community engagement are important factors when attempting to assess the effectiveness of UNDRIP implementation into national health policy and promoting traditional medicine access. In response, more study and close monitoring of legislation that acts to implement or align with UNDRIP Article 24 is necessary to ensure adequate promotion and access to traditional medicines and health services for indigenous populations in Nicaragua and beyond.

Throughout the world, indigenous peoples have advocated for the right to retain their cultural beliefs and traditional medicine practices. In 2007, the more than 370 million people representing 5000 distinct groups throughout the world received global recognition with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP Article 24 affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional medicines and health practices, and to all social and health services. Although not a legally binding agreement, UNDRIP encourages nation states to comply and implement measures to support and uphold its provisions. Within the context of indigenous health and human rights, Nicaragua serves as a unique case study for examining implementation of UNDRIP Article 24 provisions due to the changes in the Nicaraguan Constitution that strive for the overarching goal of affirming an equal right to health for all Nicaraguans and supporting the integration of traditional medicine and biomedicine at a national and regional level. To explore this subject further, we conducted a review of the policy impact of UNDRIP on health services accessible to the Miskitu indigenous peoples of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN). We found that although measures to create therapeutic cooperation are woven into Nicaraguan health plans at the national and regional level, in practice, the delivery of integrated health services has been implemented with varying results. Our review suggests that the method of policy implementation and efforts to foster intercultural collaborative approaches involving respectful community engagement are important factors when attempting to assess the effectiveness of UNDRIP implementation into national health policy and promoting traditional medicine access. In response, more study and close monitoring of legislation that acts to implement or align with UNDRIP Article 24 is necessary to ensure adequate promotion and access to traditional medicines and health services for indigenous populations in Nicaragua and beyond.

he 2020 is rich in anniversaries: the world community celebrates the 75th anniversary of the United Nations (UN) and the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women, a mass meeting of more than five thousand participants in Beijing in 1995. A three-day special event is planned during the September Session of the UN General Assembly in New York (2020), dedicated to the celebration of “Beijing Plus 25”. At these meetings governments from around the world are expected to commit to speeding up and scaling up the promises made in the historic Beijing Platform for Action. And the last 2019 was marked by the fortieth anniversary of the most important document in the field of gender equality – the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – CEDAW, which is rightfully widely known in the world as “The Bill on the Rights of Women” (1979). Anniversary dates increase motivation to comprehend the role and place of events and phenomena associated with them. Moreover, the UN theme and gender equality is a hot topic, which is due to two main circumstances. 47НАДЕАЖ АШВОИнст иД суА ВД ОНАДЕО ОДЕ суА СКсу ОДДнаАЖдОЖт иы суА ВДнаАЖдОИ иЖНОДнРОсниДInternational Trends. Volume 18. No. 2 (61). April–June / 2020On the one hand, the UN is a unique global organization that has a significant impact on international processes. On the other hand, the problem of gender equality is the basis of social stability, a condition for development and an instrument for creating the quality of life. Bridging the gender gap in all areas of life is vital to achieving sustainable development and fulfilling the promise of the 2030 Agenda. To achieve the sustainable development goals, it is necessary to ensure full and equal access for and participation in women and girls. Despite progress, women and girls are still systematically underrepresented as users and leaders in critical areas of human life. The fight against stereotypes and myths occupies a key place. There is a wide range of options available to address both the causes and symptoms underlying gender stereotypes and social norms. The emphasis on a sound strategy with a gender perspective is something that can contribute to achieving gender equality for the sustainable development of the civilized world, this is what the UN insists on.

What does being a teacher in a postcolonial democracy like Australia in the 21st century mean? Given that Australia was originally the lands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations and has only more recently been colonised and developed by Westernised, predominantly European cultural groups, this chapter aims to explore the role of education, and more specifically teachers, in Australia from this perspective. The recognition of Indigenous rights that flow from the acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the First Peoples of Australia enables one to consider the roles and responsibilities of a 21st-century Australian teacher from a rights-based perspective. This perspective is guided by the role and responsibilities of education systems, as outlined under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIPs) (United Nations, 2008). Following Australia’s endorsement of UNDRIPs in 2009, it is the Australian Government’s intention that all teachers will have, as a minimum, a proficient level of demonstrable professional expertise in both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education and Australian Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Studies, and measures are being introduced in pre-service teacher education programs nationally to support this intention. In 2016, there were 394,762.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) in-school staff in Australia of whom 276,329.8 were teaching staff (ABS, 2016) and many of these teachers have had no formal professional development in the rights based approach to the education of Indigenous children or in the methods of educating non- Indigenous Australians about Indigenous histories, languages and cultures.

Canada is widely recognized as a global leader in human rights. Yet, when Indigenous peoples’ rights are included in its human rights record, Canada’s reputation loses some of its luster. It was only one of four countries in the world to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Sensitive to Canada’s shameful underperformance in Indigenous rights, the Trudeau government set out to make a change, promising that Canada would commit itself to a new, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples and that his government would immediately adopt and implement the UNDRIP. This chapter examines what implementation of the UNDRIP means for Canada and whether Canada’s position on Indigenous rights has actually changed under the Trudeau government. It argues that there is a troubling gap between Trudeau’s vision and rhetoric and the policy realities on the ground, creating an unnecessary risk to Canada’s human rights reputation and leadership in the international community. The chapter concludes by setting out the serious challenges presented by the implementation of Indigenous rights in Canada and offers some recommendations for implementation strategies.

As the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) soared in the 1990s to some 25 million – almost twice the number of refugees – international concerns began to mount about the responsibilities of governments and the United Nations (UN) towards these people. The 1951 Refugee Convention1 did not apply to IDPs because they did not cross an internationally recognized State border. Nor was there a clear statement of their rights in international law. Although IDPs had the same rights as others in their country, they had special needs by virtue of their displacement which required a distinct normative framework. These included the loss of homes, property, livelihoods, and documentation; separation from family members and communities; vulnerability to violence; and the need to return or resettle. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement of 1998 addressed these gaps.2 It is doubtful that the Guiding Principles would ever have come into being had they required formal ratification by States. Rather, their development took place outside a traditional intergovernmental process. The Principles were formulated under the auspices of an independent expert, the Representative of the Secretary-General on IDPs, Francis M Deng, in partnership with a research institution (the Brookings Institution, where Deng was joined by Roberta Cohen), and a team of exceptionally talented lawyers (chaired by Walter Kälin, with principal drafter Robert Goldman). In appointing Deng as his Representative in 1992, the UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, recognized the need for an outside expert (with institutional support), unhampered by the constraints and political sensitivities of the UN, who could take up the task of defining ‘IDPs’ and proposing solutions to legal and institutional gaps. At the same time, the Secretary-General’s Representative would report to intergovernmental bodies – namely the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights, which had requested an ‘appropriate’ framework for IDP protection.3

The right of Indigenous peoples to provide or withhold consent in relation to development projects on or adjacent to their ancestral lands has been affirmed and articulated in international human rights instruments in recent decades, most recently iterated in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In response to the UNDRIP, a number of industries have developed consultation protocols that are not only inconsistent with FPIC characteristics by conflating the unique rights of Indigenous peoples as equivalent to other stakeholder interests. By so doing, these protocols may actually be the source of resistance to development projects. Simultaneously, management literature has sought to understand the right to FPIC from the lens of stakeholder management procedures and social license to operate. Drawing from literature in law, and expert opinion from the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this paper seeks to explain why Indigenous peoples continue to oppose resource development projects, while also offering a human rights-based paradigm with which FPIC may be understood by reframing Indigenous peoples as rights-holders rather than conventional stakeholders.