FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

By what precedent s does the Indigenous Circassian Nation functions,

International law recognizes that governments in exile may undertake many types of actions in the conduct of their daily affairs.
These actions include:
• Becoming a party to a bilateral or international treaty.
• Amending or revising its own constitution.
• Maintaining military forces.
• Retaining, or newly obtaining, diplomatic recognition from other states.
• Issuing identity documents.
• Allowing the formation of new political parties.
• Holding elections
In cases where a host country holds a large expatriate population from a government in exile's home country, or an ethnic population from that country, the government in exile might come to exercise some administrative functions within such a population. For example, the world war two Provisional Government of Free India had such authority among the ethnically Indian population of British Malaya, with the consent of the then Japanese military authorities.



1)Are there any other Peoples or Nations who have exercised United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to gain their rights successfully?

'It is using the Declaration that breathes life into it.'

As an international instrument, the Declaration provides a blueprint for Indigenous peoples and governments around the world, based on the principles of self-determination and participation, to respect the rights and roles of Indigenous peoples within society. It is the instrument that contains the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples all over the world

- Mick Gooda,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

What is happening internationally?

The global consensus that now exists in support of the Declaration reinforces its weight as a universal human rights instrument. The ongoing and widespread human rights violations against Indigenous peoples worldwide underline the urgency of realizing full and effective implementation of the Declaration.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes that the;

"Declaration is now among the most widely accepted UN human rights instruments. It is the most comprehensive statement addressing the human rights of indigenous peoples to date, establishing collective rights and minimum standards on survival, dignity, and wellbeing to a greater extent than any other international text."

The Declaration is being used by UN treaty bodies to interpret Indigenous peoples' rights and related State obligations under international treaties.

Similar use of the Declaration is being made by UN specialized agencies and the Human Rights Council's special procedures and mechanisms, which include special rapporteurs and independent experts. The Declaration is also being relied upon by domestic and regional courts, as well as other bodies within regional human rights systems in Africa and the Americas, including the Caribbean.

Greenland negotiated with Denmark significantly enhanced self-government, which its Premier describes “as a de facto implementation of the Declaration and... hopefully an inspiration to others”. http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews06301102.html#axzz2LABHXamq

​

Bolivia has become the first country to approve the U.N. declaration of indigenous rights.  Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, stated,

"We are the first country to turn this declaration into a law and that is important, brothers and sisters. We recognize and salute the work of our representatives. But if we were to remember the indigenous fight clearly, many of us who are sensitive would end up crying in remembering the discrimination, the scorn."

Since the declaration’s adoption, considerable advances have been made around the world to advance the realization of indigenous peoples’ rights:

​

While major challenges remain in establishing state and corporate social responsibility and accountability, there are examples of practices in which the interests of states and the private sector have been aligned with the welfare of indigenous communities.

• In October 2007, the Chief Justice in Belize referred to the Declaration when deciding that lands that were taken away from the Maya people by the government should be returned. The Chief Justice noted that Belize had voted for the Declaration, and the Court quoted Article 26, which states that indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and that “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources” with “due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”

​

• In November 2007, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights invoked the Declaration in a ruling in favour of the Saramaka people in Suriname to settle a logging case. The Court referred to Article 32, which affirms indigenous peoples’ “right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands.”

​

• In February 2008, the Government of Australia formally apologized to members of the “Stolen Generations” and their families for the policy of forcible removal of indigenous children, which had devastating consequences for generations of indigenous Australians.

• In April 2008, the House of Commons in Canada issued an endorsement of the Declaration, calling on the Parliament and Government to “fully implement the standards contained therein.”

​

• In June 2008, Prime Minister Harper of Canada offered an apology to the approximately 80,000 former students of Indian residential schools still living, and to their family members and their communities, for the forcible removal of children from their homes.

​

• Also in June 2008, the Government of Japan formally recognized the Ainu people as indigenous people of Northern Japan. The resolution adopted by the Japanese Parliament states that the Ainu have a distinct language, religion and culture, recognizing that Japan is not an ethnically homogenous nation.

​

• In Bolivia, a referendum to amend the Constitution in January 2009 resulted in approximately 60 per cent of the population voting in favour of changes to give Bolivia’s indigenous majority more power. The new Constitution provides for dedicated seats in Congress and in the Constitutional Court for smaller indigenous groups and, among other things, grants autonomy to indigenous peoples that will allow them to practice community justice according to their own customs.

​

• As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or “Stimulus Bill”) of February 2009, $510 million was allocated to be spent on the rehabilitation of Native American housing.

​

• In its February 2009 report to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Honduras stated that since 1995, the Honduran government has provided financial support for several indigenous programmes, including $15 million for indigenous peoples’ education.

​

• The government of Namibia has initiated several education, employment and other programmes aimed at assisting Namibia’s most marginalized peoples, the San. Since 2005, such initiatives have included coffin manufacturing, beekeeping, aquaculture, and projects targeted specifically at supporting San women.

Since its adoption, the Declaration has been translated into some 15 indigenous and other languages in addition to the six official languages of the United Nations.

See www.un.org/indigenous for more details.

The precedent of the Circassian Declaration of Nationhood Brussels 2011 inspired the Original Tribal Sovereign Federation the Indigenous Nations of Australia (OTSF) on the February 13, 2013 hand delivered to the Australian Parliament a ‘Declaration of Nationhood’.

While it’s still early days in respect to the application of the declaration, there is no doubt that the future as intended, the rights within the declaration will become a minimum  for standards maintained within and by the global community of governments and Nations.

It’s adoption

The Declaration was over 25 years in the making. The idea originated in 1982 when the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) set up its Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), The Declaration (document A/61/L.67) was then referred to the General Assembly, which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session

The vote was, in favour 144 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

​

A brief history on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

1983 - The initial steps

The formulation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples first began in 1983 within the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. For almost a decade the Working Group devoted a large part of its time to drafting this text. Representatives of indigenous peoples, government delegations and experts on the subject participated very actively in this process.

In 1993, the Working Group adopted the text of the Declaration and sent it to its superior body, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which, in turn, adopted the text in 1994 and sent it to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

1995- The establishment of the Working Group on the Draft Declaration

In 1995, the Commission on Human Rights considered the text submitted by the Sub-Commission and decided to establish an Inter-sessional Working Group (Resolution of the Commission on Human Rights 1995 / 32, 3 March 1995) with the mandate to consider the text presented and draw up a draft Declaration for its consideration and adoption by the UN General Assembly within the framework of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004). In 2005 the mandate of the Working Group was renewed.

The Commission on Human Rights also set up a procedure that made it possible for indigenous peoples' organisations to participate actively in the drafting work at the Commission level. That meant that indigenous peoples' organisations without consultative status with the Economic and Social Council were allowed to help draft the Declaration. Those entitled to vote within this Working Group were the member governments of the Commission on Human Rights. Governments that were not members of the Commission, NGOs with consultative status and indigenous organisations with special accreditation had observer status.

2007 - UN General Assembly adopts the Declaration

With an overwhelming majority of 143 votes in favour, only 4 negative votes cast (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) and 11 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly (GA) adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13, 2007 after more than 20 years of negotiations between nation-states and Indigenous Peoples.

Les Malezer, Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, welcomed the adoption of the Declaration in a statement to the General Assembly:

"The Declaration does not represent solely the viewpoint of the United Nations, nor does it represent solely the viewpoint of the Indigenous Peoples. It is a Declaration which combines our views and interests and which sets the framework for the future. It is a tool for peace and justice, based upon mutual recognition and mutual respect."

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a major achievement by Indigenous peoples in the face of state reluctance, and sometimes active resistance, to address the issues contained in it. The Declaration goes beyond previous international statements on Indigenous rights, especially in key areas like self-determination, rights to lands, territories and resources, cultural integrity, and respect for existing treaty rights.

According to a UN press release The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

it does -

"represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN's member states to move in certain directions";

The UN describes it as setting "an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples that will undoubtedly be a significant tool towards eliminating human rights violations against the planet's 370 million indigenous people and assisting them in combating discrimination and marginalisation.

​

​

Purpose

The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also

"emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations".

It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development”.

The goal of the Declaration is to encourage countries to work alongside indigenous peoples to solve global issues, like development, multicultural democracy and decentralization. According to Article 31, there is a major emphasis that the indigenous peoples will be able to protect their cultural heritage and other aspects of their culture and tradition, which is extremely important in preserving their heritage.

Legal Effect and Influence of the Declaration

In United Nations practice, a declaration is a “formal and solemn instrument”, resorted to “only in very rare cases relating to matters of major and lasting importance where maximum compliance is expected.” Using that particular instrument creates

“a strong expectation that Members of the international community will abide by it”

and,

“consequently, in so far as the expectation is gradually justified by State practice, a declaration may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon States” (Report of the Commission on Human Rights, E/3616/Rev. l, para. 105).

​

UNDRIP is a solemn, comprehensive and authoritative response of the international community of States to the claims of indigenous peoples, with which maximum compliance is expected.

Some of the rights stated therein may already form part of customary international law, others may become the fons et origo of later-emerging customary international law.

Scholarly analyses of State practice and opinio juris have concluded that indigenous peoples are entitled to maintain and develop their distinct cultural identity, their spirituality, their language, and their traditional ways of life;

that they hold the right to political, economic and social self-determination, including a wide range of autonomy; and that they have a right to the lands they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used.

​

​

​

The Declaration calls itself a “standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect” (preamble). Article 42 requires the United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, as well as States to “promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness” of it. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mr. S. James Anaya, stated in his August 2008 report, UNDRIP thus constitutes

“an authoritative common understanding, at the global level, of the minimum content of the rights of indigenous peoples, upon a foundation of various sources of international human rights law .… The principles and rights affirmed in the Declaration constitute or add to the normative frameworks for the activities of United Nations human rights institutions, mechanisms and specialized agencies as they relate to indigenous peoples.”

As the Special Rapporteur uses the Declaration as a measure to evaluate State conduct, so will the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in its annual report on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which is focusing on UNDRIP’s implementation, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The standards of UNDRIP are also being mainstreamed into the policies and programmes of the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the ILO and UNESCO.

On the regional level, the Declaration has been referred to by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 28 November 2007 in Saramaka People v. Suriname – a case in the progeny of the Court’s celebrated Awas Tingni judgment of 31 August 2001 which affirmed the existence of an indigenous people's collective right to its land. The Court in Saramaka referred specifically to article 32(2), the consultation and cooperation requirement in order to obtain indigenous peoples’ free prior and informed consent with respect to any project affecting their lands and resources.

​

On the domestic level, article 38 provides that States shall take appropriate measures, including legislation, to achieve the ends of the Declaration. This provision is increasingly complied with.

The Declaration has already formed the basis for pertinent laws in individual countries, as exemplified by the Indigenous People’s Rights Act in the Philippines; Bolivia’s National Law 3760 of 7 November 2001, which incorporates UNDRIP without change; and constitutional amendments in various other Latin American countries. Domestic courts now also start to make use of the Declaration as adopted, exemplified by the 2007 judgment by the Supreme Court of Belize in the consolidated cases of Aurelio Cal et al. v. Belize.

The Chief Justice in that case, in elaborating on his finding of a violation of customary international law, stated his view that the 2007 Declaration

“embodying as it does, general principles of international law relating to indigenous peoples and their lands and resources, is of such force that the defendants, representing the Government of Belize, will not disregard it.”

​

Similar arguments and decisions will be made, internationally and domestically, to ensure maximum compliance with the provisions of UNDRIP and the development of best practices under the guiding light of its general regime.

International Instruments for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights International legal instruments take the form of a treaty (also called agreement, convention, covenant, protocol), which may be binding, on the Contracting States. When negotiations are completed, the text of a treaty is established as authentic and definitive and is “signed” to that effect by the representatives of states. There are various means by which a state expresses its consent to be bound by a treaty. The most common are ratification or accession. A new treaty is “ratified” by those states that have negotiated the instrument. A state, which has not participated in the negotiations, may, at a later stage, “accede” to the treaty. The treaty enters into force when a pre-determined number of states have ratified or acceded to the treaty.

When a state ratifies or accedes to a treaty, that state may make reservations to one or more articles of the treaty, unless reservations are prohibited by the treaty. Reservations may normally be withdrawn at any time. In some countries, international treaties take precedence over national law; in others, a specific law may be required to give an international treaty, although ratified or acceded to, the force of a national law. Practically all states that have ratified or acceded to an international treaty must issue decrees, amend existing laws or introduce new legislation in order for the treaty to be fully effective on the national territory.

​

Not all international instruments are legally binding treaties. For example, some of the most important human rights instruments are declarations. A declaration does not have any legal power to enforce compliance, but rely purely on the moral weight it carries.

​

Indigenous Peoples' rights overlap with many other human rights. Many important Indigenous Peoples' rights are not framed in specific Indigenous Peoples' rights treaties, but are part of more general treaties, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

​

United Nations

Human Rights Council adopts Declaration in June 2006

Human Rights Council Res. 2006/2, Working group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly res. 49/214 of 23 December 1994 (2006).

​

​

​

Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This is the most comprehensive statement of the rights of Indigenous Peoples to date, establishing collective rights to a greater extent than any other document in international human rights law. It establishes the rights of Indigenous Peoples to the protection of their cultural property and identity as well as the rights to education, employment, health, religion, language and more. It also protects the right of Indigenous Peoples to own land collectively. Although States are not legally bound by the Declaration, it will exert a considerable amount of moral force when adopted by the General Assembly. Consisting of 46 Articles, the draft Declaration was divided into nine parts:

​

Part 1. Fundamental Rights

Part 2. Life and Security

Part 3. Culture, Religion, and Language Laws

Part 4. Education, Media, and Employment

Part 5. Participation and Development

Part 6. Land and Resources

Part 7. Self Government and Indigenous

Part 8. Implementation

Part 9. Minimum Standards

Originally drafted in 1985 by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the world’s largest human rights forum, the draft Declaration was adopted by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1994. From there, the draft was submitted to the Commission on Human Rights, which established the Working Group on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Working Group, in which more than 200 Indigenous organizations participate, meets once a year. Its goal is to facilitate the General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration by 2004, the final year of the International Decade for the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

Outside of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples there is an impressive compilation of instruments designated for the protection of human rights further adding force and authority behind man’s relentless pursuit of justice and equality. Some of these are listed below with a brief description.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the first international document that states that all human beings are “equal in dignity and rights.” (Article 1) Everybody is entitled to the rights in the Declaration, “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951)

Genocide means any of the following acts which have the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: “killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” (Article 2)

​

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

This Covenant outlines the basic civil and political rights of individuals. There are also provisions for collective rights. “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.” (Article 27)

​

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

This Covenant describes the basic economic, social, and cultural rights of individuals. It also has provisions for collective rights.

​

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966)

“Racial discrimination” is defined as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” (Article 1)

​

International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 (1989)

The ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention was the first international convention to address the specific needs for Indigenous Peoples' human rights. The Convention outlines the responsibilities of governments in promoting and protecting the human rights of Indigenous Peoples.

​

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)

The Convention contains regulations and suggestions relevant to Indigenous Peoples on the non-discrimination of children (Article 2), the broadcasting of information by the mass media in minority languages (Article 17), the right to education, including education on human rights, its own cultural identity, language and values. (Article 29) Article 30 states that children of minorities or indigenous origin shall not be denied the right to their own culture, religion or language

Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992)

This Declaration deals with all minorities, which includes many of the world’s Indigenous Peoples. It only concerns individual rights, although collective rights might be derived from those individual rights. The Declaration deals both with states’ obligations towards minorities as well as the rights of minority people. Topics that are dealt with include the national or ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic identity of minorities (Article 1); the free expression and development of culture; association of minorities amongst themselves; participation in decisions regarding the minority (Article 2); the exercise of minority rights, both individual and in groups (Article 3); and education of and about minorities. (Article 4)

​

Rio Declaration of Environment and Development and Agenda 21 (1992)

These two documents are connected to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In them, the special relationship between Indigenous Peoples and their lands is acknowledged. Indigenous Peoples have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their traditional knowledge and practices. (Rio Declaration, Principle 22) In order to fully make use of that knowledge, some Indigenous Peoples might need greater control over their land, self-management of their resources and participation in development decisions affecting them. (Agenda 21, Chapter 26.4)

​

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

The Convention calls upon its signatories to “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices;” (Article 8(j))

​

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993)

The Vienna Declaration is the closing declaration of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights held in Austria. It

“recognizes the inherent dignity and the unique contribution of indigenous people [sic] to the development and plurality of society and strongly reaffirms the commitment of the international community to their economic, social and cultural well-being.” (I.20)

Report of the International Conference on Population and Development (1994)

At the Conference it was agreed that the perspectives and needs of Indigenous Peoples should be included in population, development or environmental programs that affect them, that they should receive population- and development-related services that are socially, culturally and ecologically appropriate. (Paragraph 6.24) Another important decision was that Indigenous Peoples should be enabled to have tenure and manage their land, and protect the natural resources and ecosystems on which they depend. (Paragraph 6.27)

​

Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (2001)

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action has a specific section dealing with Indigenous Peoples issues. Perhaps more important than all the recommendations is the fact that the Declaration is the first United Nations document that uses the phrase “Indigenous Peoples” rather than “Indigenous People”.

​

European Union (EU)

Council Resolution on Indigenous Peoples within the Framework of the Development Cooperation of the Community and Members States (1998)

This resolution provides the main European Union guidelines for support of Indigenous Peoples. It calls for the integration of Indigenous Peoples’ interests in all levels of development cooperation and the full and free participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development process. The resolution states: “Indigenous cultures constitute a heritage of diverse knowledge and ideas, which is a potential resource for the entire planet.”

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities

The Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities was established in 1992 to identify and seek early resolution of ethnic tensions that might endanger peace, stability or friendly relations between OSCE participating States. The High Commissioner has no specific Indigenous Peoples mandate, but treats Indigenous Peoples like any other national minority.

​

Organization of American States (OAS)

Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1997)

The draft Declaration outlines the human rights that are specific to Indigenous Peoples. Items covered include, among others, the right to self-government, indigenous law and the right to cultural heritage. A Working Group of the OAS is still discussing the Declaration.

​

World Bank

World Bank Operational Directive (1991)

This Operational Directive outlines the World Bank’s definition of and interest in Indigenous Peoples. It also addresses economic issues (technical assistance and investment project mechanisms) concerning Indigenous Peoples. The Bank’s narrow definition of Indigenous Peoples and ambiguity concerning its role in their economic development has resulted in much criticism from Indigenous Peoples' human rights advocates. Consequently, the World Bank is currently in the process of revising it. A draft of the new Directive 4.10 (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/0/c9878d8cbf6e2ac485256a6b007c93e0?OpenDocument) is available on the World Bank website.

2. Do you cooperate with any other NGO’s or Indigenous Peoples?

Today indigenous Autochthonous Nations have a common grief that has been brought on by the ravages of Colonisation and that is Assimilation.

It is our intent to seek-out and build friendly relations with other Nations so that we can share in the mutual benefit collaboration brings. To date we have made strong allegiances with the Indigenous Nations and Tribes in Australia, the Prussai and the Maori Nations.

Our Diplomatic Missions are charged with constantly seeking to build new relationships with representatives of the worlds estimated 5000 Nations.

Much is owed to help provided by the International Congress of Autochthonous Nations (ICAN), OSTF, Adyghe Indigenous Organisation NGO (AIO) and Global legal Solution (GLS) a legal Non Profit specialising in International Law, their role in facilitating these important allegiances and friendships has been invaluable and crucially integral to the establishment and foundation.

3. Is Indigenous Adyghe Circassian Nation a peaceful?

In short Yes, peace is of primary importance.

As a member of the international society of Nations it is essential to hold sacred and respect the inalienable and inherit rights of all mankind.

As supporters of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, we pay special notice of ;
•Article (1), Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.  

​

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES Article 1 of the  Charter of the United Nations  clearly stipulates:
•2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
•3.To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
•4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

                                                  
•Also Article (34) Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.                                                                                                                                                               
•As well as Article (40) ,Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights and also Articles (7), (45), (46)

All actions made by our peaceful Autochthonous Nation shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, peace, and respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

​

4. Is the Indigenous Circassian Nation a separatist movement?

The Indigenous Circassian Nation it is not a movement ,organisation, activist, lobbyist, NGO or a company.

The Indigenous Circassian Nation has no relation or basis to anything administrative, bureaucratic or any man made entity, The Indigenous Circassian Nation is the assertion and mandate of ‘jure divino’ in the context of legal Authority. This is a fact that cannot be disputed contested or subjected to any other presumed legal authority, in other words the Circassian Nation is Sovereign . From a legal perspective The Circassian Nation is an Autochthonous Nation and is as any other Nation is subject to no other jurisdiction than that of its own people and ancient customary laws. As affirmed in

Article 21(3) of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

​

​

‘The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government’

​

​

UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (UNDRIP) recognises that there is a clear distinction between a State entity a Nation or peoples,

As per Article 6

‘Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality’.

​

And in Article 9,

‘Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or Nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or Nation concerned’. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

The UNDRIP, also recognises that an Indigenous people or Nation exist as a separate entity although equal in authority and recognition they remain a distinctly different entity to that of a State entity. This is especially evident and clear In the preamble where it states that, the UN General Assembly i.e. “Member States”

‘Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.’ That is a mutually respectfully partnership consist of two entities of equal value and benefit.

And

‘ Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,’

It is also important to emphasise that UN Member States as per the declaration preamble are;

‘Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur,’

The indigenous Circassian nations (the Adyghe) are the Autochthons of the geographical area known as Circassia since time immemorial. In other words the Adyghe are ‘jure divino’ in Circassia. The nature and grammar of this chronology compels to dismiss any suggestions of separatism as fallacious. Separatism usually only applies to statist political movements or secession, this is when a nations is hijacked by the tug-o-war aspirations of opposing statist political ideologies, in the process adversely affecting a suffering Nation as a result.

It would be strange to assume if you come across a stone at the foot of a mountain that the mountain broke away from the stone. As it would be strange to assume that an Autochthonous nation would be a separatist antagonist , rather in our case we have been a most accommodating tolerant host.

The Circassian Nation is utilising to its fullest effect all rights, privileges and responsibilities extended to it within international law. It is our obligation before the international community, law and peace to maintain and develop our unique indigenous culture which forms part of the world’s Intangible cultural heritage. It would be a neglectful crime not to peruse the development, growth and promotion of our great nation. We owe it to our future generations to preserve and maintain the Circassian Nation, so that they grow to know, practice, enjoy and be proud Circassians one day.

It is important to note the significant difference in definitions between a State and a Nation. Although large amounts of effort has been applied to corrupt the meaning of Nation into a synonym of State, in actual fact the etymology of these words fortunately prevents such usurpations to occur.

It is also crucial to note here that, all actions made by our peaceful and ancient nation shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, peace, and respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

The mandates of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (UNDRIP) clearly support the preservation of indigenous cultures within the parameters of international law and custom.

Preambles of UNDRIP;
•Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs,

Article 5
•Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.