The following documents are (1) the recent draft of the Concluding Observations on the fourth report of the United States of America from the UN Human Rights Committee (note in particular paragraph 25 on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, sacred sites, and FPIC) and (2) the “List of Issues” filed by Suffolk Law School’s Indigenous Peoples Clinic to the UN Human Rights Committee back in 2012 when the U.S. report was first released.
Concluding Observations on the fourth report of the United States of America Human Rights Committee
Here is the article titled “Thousands of artifacts removed from rural Indiana home.”
Here are some relevant materials in Davis v. Abercrombie (D. Haw.):
462 Order Granting Huy’s Motion For Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief
Julie Nania & Karen Cozzetto have published “Considerations for Climate Change and Variability Adaptation on the Navajo Nation,” a report coming out of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at CU Law.
The report pdf is here.
The Oregon Law Review has published New Ways to Fulfill Old Promises: Native American Hunting and Fishing Rights as Intangible Cultural Property.
Here is an excerpt:
Current law and policy in the United States has failed to develop a framework that accounts for the unique nature of intangible cultural heritage. Therefore, intangible cultural heritage, such as Native American hunting and fishing rights, lacks adequate protection. However, international laws—such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage—can help United States lawmakers develop a framework that recognizes Native American hunting and fishing rights as intangible cultural heritage, and adequately protects them as such.
The Committee issued a report from its recent review the U.S. late last week.
Of note:
Rights of indigenous people
25. The Committee is concerned about the insufficient measures being taken to protect the sacred areas of indigenous peoples against desecration, contamination and destruction as a result of urbanization, extractive industries, industrial development, tourism and toxic contamination. It is also concerned about restricted access of indigenous people to sacred areas essential for preservation of their religious, cultural and spiritual practices and the insufficiency of consultation conducted with indigenous peoples on matters of interest to their communities (art. 27).
The State party should adopt measures to effectively protect sacred areas of indigenous peoples against desecration, contamination and destruction and ensure that consultations are held with the communities that might be adversely affected by State party’s development projects and exploitation of natural resources with a view to obtaining their free, prior and informed consent for the potential project activities.
Here is the order in Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada v. Dept. of Interior:
CA9 Unpublished Memorandum w Dissent
An excerpt from the dissent:
The BLM’s analysis of why E.O. 13007 did not apply was faulty for three reasons: the analysis failed to recognize that comments regarding the proposal did point to the area where the mine is being built as an area in which worship occurs; it demanded quantification of that use as a condition of Executive Order coverage, when no such quantification is necessary; and it required greater specificity of location than comports with Shoshone religious practices. As to the last point, to require greater specificity would interfere with Shoshone religious practices, as those practices appear to regard certain recognized natural areas, rather than specific set locations, as places for worship.
Briefs are here.
Here.
I wonder … So many news organizations will no longer print the Washington Football Team’s nickname, but Snyder won’t budge. What if those news organizations stopped printing Snyder’s name?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.