《联合国土著民族权利宣言》研究

【作者】 廖敏文；

【导师】 徐中起；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 民族法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 民主、公平、正义、平等和人的尊严是国际人权法的理论基石。国际人权法对人类家庭成员的保护是基于权利的保护。人类社会的发展进步不能以牺牲人类家庭中某些成员或某类群体的权利和利益为代价,一个民族的发展进步更不能以牺牲其他民族的权利和利益为代价。为了在人类发展进步中实现民主、公正、正义、平等和维护人的尊严,现行国际人权法对民族权利的保护按其赋予的法律地位和权利可分为三个法律制度领域:保护有国家组织并以国家边界为划分标志的国家民族/国族权利的法律制度,保护受殖民主义入侵、征服和统治的国家民族/国族和受殖民主义入侵、征服和统治的、社会组织结构可以发展为有国家组织的次国家民族权利的法律制度,保护被纳入国家管辖范围、以文化特征为划分标志,处于国家社会非主导地位的族群权利的法律制度。在后两个领域中,有一个界于两者之间的受保护的权利主体和受益者的身影,这就是土著民族。正是这种界于两者之间的地位使土著民族没有得到国际人权法的很好保护,或者说,由于土著民族的特殊性造成了土著民族无法真正享有前者领域中的权利,而后者领域中的权利又不能很好地对其筑起保护屏障。土著民族的特殊性在于:在当今全球空间已经分属于现代国家管辖范围的情况下,他们已不太可能发展为有国家组织的民族,即只能以次国家民族或少数民族身份存在于世。但他们又与那些非土著的少数族群,尤其是那些在近现代因种种原因移民或人口流动而形成的族群不同。他们与这些受后者领域保护的少数群体的根本不同点在于:他们是在自己祖传领土上社群性的土著、原住和世居性地聚居而非近现代意义上的移民性聚居,他们的独特文化与生态环境有不可割断的联系。一旦这种联系中断,其文化的独特性将不再存在,文化即随之消失,作为文化载体的民族将名存实亡,即使民族成员个体的肉体未被消灭。因此,国际人权法对民族权利的保护逐渐出现了第四个领域——专门保护土著民族权利的领域。尽管有一些关于土著民族权利保护的散见式、专编专章式和专门的国际立法,但在全面宣示和确认土著民族权利方面由于缺少一个普遍适用的纲领性和原则性国际人权法律文件,这个专门领域一直未能基本形成直到《联合国土著民族权利宣言》的问世。宣言不仅高度概括现行国际人权法律文件确认的土著民族权利,而且承认了了土著民族的法律地位和确认了土著民族的更多权利,制定了保护土著民族的最低标准,大大提高了国际人权法对土著民族的保护程度。宣言在国际人权法史上是一个里程碑式的法律文件,它标志着国际人权法对民族权利保护法律制度领域的发展和完善。这是一个非常耐人寻味和现实意义重大的国际人权法律文件,因而对它的研究具有法学价值。本论文对宣言文本所涉及的法律问题进行了全面和深入的研究,主要通过:1、对国际人权法上包括“土著民族”在内的含有中文“民族”一词的有关法律用语的概念,以及这些法律用语所指称的对象在国际人权法上享有的法律地位和权利的论述,阐明了它们之间的联系和区别。2、对土著民族的几个重要权利,如自决权、土地权、生态环境权和文化权的论述,阐明了这些权利的含义、范围以及土著民族享有这些权利的正当性和在现行国际人权法中的依据。3、对大量有关土著民族权利所涉及的法律问题的文献资料和对大量国际人权法学者的学术观点的论述和分析,阐明了本论文对有关问题的观点和见解。通过这些论述、分析和阐明,本论文的最后结论是:尽管宣言对国家不具强制性的法律约束力,但为国家设立了保护土著民族的最低道义标准,国家有尊重和维护土著民族权利的道义性义务。根据国际法的立法实践,道义性规范在国际社会的实践中会逐步成为国际习惯法,最后成为有强制性约束力的法律规范。无论如何,宣言对土著民族权利的确认是土著民族人权事业的进步,也是国际人权法的新发展。宣言对世界土著民族人权的保护具有重要的法律意义,对保护全球生态环境的生物多样性和人类社会的文化多样性具有重要的现实意义。对多民族国家,尤其是包含有土著民族的国家(不管国家是否承认)的现行民族政策、法律制度和安排,以及今后的相关政策和立法的制定提出了挑战。多民族国家,不管是否有土著民族,应该吸收宣言所体现的具有积极意义的因素,如公正、民主、尊重人权、平等、不歧视、善政和诚意原则,多元文化主义原则,尊重民族人民的权利原则,尊重民族尊严原则,人类社会、文化和而不同、共生共存、共同发展的理念,倡导尊重土著民族知识、文化和传统习惯,等等。至少,多民族国家对宣言所宣示和确认的土著民族权利带来的挑战不可忽视,应该给予应对性或对策性考虑。本论文为达到研究之目的,整个论文由导论、正文和结语等三大部分组成。导论部分探讨选题意义、研究现状、理论框架、研究思路和主要研究方法,并对本文的主要研究问题及创新之处进行了归纳。结语对全文所阐述的内容进行了总结,并提出自己的观点和建议。正文是本论文的核心和最重要的部分,共有十二章,各章相互独立但相互又有逻辑关联性。各章的内容概要如下:第一章“国际人权法上有关‘民族’的法律用语和概念”,首先对有关国际人权法律文件中的“民族”概念“peoples”和“nation”进行辨析。认为一般意义上的“民族(peoples)”和特定意义上的“国家民族/国族(nation)”,两者是两个有关联但不同的概念。“nation”一般指建立了现代国家政府体系的大型人们共同体,而“peoples”一般指“次国家民族(sub-nation)”的人们共同体。但两者均被有关国际人权法律文件确认为自决权的权利主体,即自决权享有者或受益者(the beneficiaries of self-determination)。在国际人权话语中,“民族人民(a people/peoples)”的概念始终都是与一项在国际层面主张的基本人权——自决权密切联系在一起的。第二章“民族人民的权利”,通过对国际人权体系的全面分析,认为国际人权体系是一个不断发展、不断完善的体系,随着人类社会生活的发展,人需要更多的权利来保障自己的生存与发展,同时所有人权和基本自由都是不可分割和相互依存的。在现代人权概念中,集体权利已经得到国际社会的普遍认可。集体人权是由个体人组成的特定人类族群应享有的基本人权和自由。集体人权更一般地是指民族人民的人权,民族人民的权利在集体人权中占据核心位置。被现行国际人权法律文件宣示、确认或阐明的民族人民的权利有平等权、自决权,发展权、生存权、对天然财富和资源的永久主权权利、环境权、和平与安全权等。第三章“谁是土著民族——土著民族的界定问题”,通过分析各种用语、概念和定义,指出,凡自我认同的被称为土著民族的这类民族的基本特征是相同的,“土著民族”是根据人们共同体的“土著性”划分出来的民族,所谓“土著性”可以概括为:时间上的居先性、地理上特定区域内活动的相对固定性、文化对生境的密切依赖性,与特定社会的历史连续性和对传统文化的固守性。《联合国土著民族权利宣言》没有采用对土著民族的任何定义,但“土著民族”概念的定义缺失决不应构成对国际人权法保护土著民族权利和联合国机构解决影响土著民族实质性问题的障碍。作为《联合国土著民族权利宣言》法律用语的“土著民族”概念是广义概念上的“土著民族”,而从类型上讲,是指社会形态处于次国家族体的土著民族。宣言所宣示和确认的权利的受益者的范围是广义概念上的土著民族和属于次国家族体的三种类别的土著民族。第四章“土著民族问题的来龙去脉”,通过大量的事例对土著民族问题的形成与发展作了追根溯源的具体分析,认为土著民族的生存与发展因在历史上受到入侵、征服和殖民,尤其是近代西方殖民主义的入侵、征服和殖民而受到威胁而被迫中断。在现代,土著民族的生存与发展再次受到以工业主义为主导的现代化和经济全球化的威胁。他们始终都在为自己的生存与发展在历史和现实中挣扎,在各种压力和威胁下寻找自己的生存与发展空间。土著民族问题在表面上看起来是土著民族的生存与发展问题,但在实质上是土著民族的人权问题。对土著民族的民族尊严的不尊重导致了对土著民族的民族权利的不尊重,最后必然导致他们丧失生存与发展的前提条件和基本保障。土著民族迫切需要国家和国际社会对他们作为自成一类的民族身份和地位,对他们作为民族的集体权利和作为民族成员个体的个人权利给予承认。第五章“土著民族与人类学”,通过分析土著民族与人类学之间的关系,认为人类学家对土著民族问题最有发言权。土著民族造就了人类学,而人类学产生以后,又为真实记载土著民族的境况、介绍土著民族的文明和文化做出了自己的学科贡献。特别是近年来,人类学家主动承担起社会责任和道义责任,为保护土著民族文化及其创造者奔走呼号,在土著民族和人类学家的共同努力下,土著民族问题得以被国际社会列入重要的议事日程,土著民族人权得以进入国际人权法保护的视野。第六章“国际社会与土著民族人权事业”,通过分析土著民族与国际社会在为土著民族争取权利方面各自发挥的积极作用,认为国际社会随着对土著民族在人类社会中的价值和贡献的认识和了解,对土著民族人权问题的解决被列入了联合国的国际人权立法议程。联合国在对土著民族问题的态度、认识和解决方式上都有了明显的进步。在包括土著民族非政府组织在内的国际民间社会和联合国相关机构的共同努力下,联合国设立了一系列解决土著民族问题的机制,这些机制一方面帮助解决土著民族的投诉,另一方面在制定《联合国土著民族权利宣言》的谈判过程中,在利益博弈双方土著民族和国家政府之间起到了很好的桥梁沟通作用。在土著民族、国际民间社会和联合国有关机制的共同努力下,宣言作为土著民族人权事业进步的标志性成果得以问世。第七章“土著民族的法律地位”,通过分析土著民族应享有何种法律地位的问题,认为《联合国土著民族权利宣言》确立了土著民族的法律地位,使土著民族应享有何种法律地位的问题得到了解决。这个问题的解决对土著民族具有非常重要的意义。根据宣言,土著民族被承认是“民族人民(peoples)”从而享有相应的法律地位,即土著民族享有国际法律人格者地位,土著民族作为民族的集体权利受国际人权法的保护,并且在特定条件下,可以成为准国际法主体。依据这种法律地位,土著民族除享有国际人权宪章所规定的各种权利外,还享有其特定的权利,如自决权、对天然财富和资源的永久主权权利、缔结条约的权利等。第八章“土著民族的自决权和自治权”,通过对土著民族的自决权与自治权的理论分析,土著民族自决权并不当然意味着任何土著民族都有权从国家分离,这一方面要强调促进和保护土著民族自决权的重要性,同时也要强调这种促进和保护要有利于土著民族居住国的政治和社会的稳定。只要国家政府是一个充分代表包括土著民族在内的合法而又民主的政府,土著民族的自治权或自主权——自决权的内部自决方面得到充分保障和实现,在此情形之下,土著民族自决权的外部自决方面如果仍要坚持行使就不可能得到国际社会的承认和支持。第九章“土著民族的土地权利”,通过对土著民族的土地权利的重要性、侵权现象的种种表现以及维权的法律依据和解决方式的具体分析,指出土著民族的土地权利是其人权的基本权利,是保障土著民族获得生存与发展所需物质,维护文化独特性的前提条件,因此必须首先考虑和重点强调。侵犯土著民族土地权利问题既是一个由来已久的历史问题,又是正在发生或可能发生的现实问题。国际人权法已在这方面作出了相应的回应,但还要靠各国和土著民族采取多种形式以维护土著民族关于土地的权利。第十章“土著民族的文化权利”,通过对土著民族文化遗产和传统知识的概念、价值和维护土著民族文化权利的原则和途径的具体分析,指出鉴于土著民族的文化遗产和传统知识对土著民族自身至关重要和对全人类文化知识的重要贡献,但其文化遗产的毁灭与传统知识的消失已危在旦夕,因此,必须坚持人类共同利益原则、文化多样性原则、土著民族应该主要受益原则,加快法律保护机制的建设,并调动各种社会力量,积极、主动、自觉维护土著民族的文化权利。第十一章“土著民族的生态环境权利”,通过对土著民族生态环境与生物多样性和文化多样的关系,地球气候变化对土著民族生态环境的影响的阐述,分析了影响土著民族社会经济脆弱性和生态自然脆弱性的因素的现实情况;论述了土著民族生态环境权的权利要素和价值取向;归纳了国际环境法律文件和国际人权法律文件对保护土著民族生态环境权的基本标准。在此基础上本章进一步论证了土著民族生态环境权是实现土著民族可持续和生态环境健全的自我发展的保障性权利,认为应正确处理土著民族人权保护和生态环境保护的关系,以确保土著民族生存与发展所必需的土地和自然资源不被过度开发利用,确保土著民族生计方式和文化高度依赖的生态环境不被破坏,强调承认土著民族的传统生态知识在保护生态环境的作用和价值,并将其应用与生态环境的保护之中。第十二章“《土著民族权利宣言》对中国在现代化进程中少数民族权利保护的启示”。本张以详实的材料说明了中国对土著民族和少数民族人权的立场和态度,认为中国政府一贯支持土著民族的人权事业,积极参与《土著民族权利宣言》的制定和通过工作和活动。中国结合自己的国情创造性地实行了符合中国国情的民族区域自治制度,逐步建立了以平等团结和友好互助为基本特点的新型民族关系,在保护少数民族人权方面取得了比较显著的成效。中国还积极参加了少数民族人权保护的国际合作和国际活动,在一系列国际人权活动中坚持正确的立场,反对殖民主义、反对种族隔离和种族歧视,为国际社会促进少数民族人权保护事业作了大量工作。本章最后论证了《土著民族权利宣言》对中国在现代化进程中保护少数民族人权的启示,认为应重视对《土著民族权利宣言》中人权保护的观念、动向、途径的研究,以应对宣言提出的挑战,以便在遵循以我为主,择善而从的原则的前提下,进一步完善中国的民族法制,不断提升中国保护少数民族人权的境界,为维护国际人权事业做出中国式的贡献。更多还原

【Abstract】 The theory of International Human Rights Law (thereinafter IHRL) is based on democracy, fairness, justice, equality and human dignity. The protection of the human family members is right-based one. The progress and development of human society can never be at the cost of the rights and interests of some members and some groups in the human family. Also, the progress and development of a people can never be at the cost of the rights and interests of other peoples. To achieve democracy, fairness, justice, equality and to maintain human dignity in human progress and development, the existing IHRL has established three law systems for protecting the peoples’ rights according to their legal status and rights recognized by it: the first law system is the one that protects the rights of nations, which have the country boundary as their label; the second law system is the one that protects the rights of nations and peoples, which are in the subjection to alien, especially colonialist, subjugation, domination and exploitation; the third law system that protects the rights of the ethnic groups within a state, which have their own cultural distinctiveness and are usually called national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (thereinafter minorities) in IHRL. Indigenous people can either protected by the second law system or protected by the third law system, but it is their such status that they can not be well-protected by IHRL. That is to say, because of their distinctiveness, they cannot in fact enjoy the rights given by the former and the latter cannot build a strong wall to shield them from their human rights violation.The distinctiveness of indigenous peoples lies in that within the states’ jurisdiction, it is impossible for them to develop into a nation, that is, they can only exist in the world with the status of sub-nation or national minorities. But actually they are quite difference from non-indigenous ethnic minorities, especially those who because of various causes and reasons have immigrated or population-flown into a country and formed into different ethnic groups. What is their differences from the latter’s characteristics is that they are territorially-concentrated to live on their ancestral lands that came down to them for generations, and that their distinctive culture has closely connected with the natural environment. This link with natural environment cannot cut and if this happens, their distinctive cultural will disappear or extinguished, even though they are physically survival. It means that as the cultural carrier the group exists in name only.Therefore, there gradually has come out the fourth law system in IHRL, that is, the special law system for protection of indigenous peoples’ human rights. Although there are some international legislation in the form of various IHRL documents on the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. But there is in absence of a programmatic legal document, with guiding principles and which enshrines and confirms indigenous peoples’ rights comprehensively. Not until " United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (thereinafter UNDRIP) " came into the world, has the fourth law system for protection of indigenous peoples basically completed. UNDRIP not only generalizes the rights confirmed for indigenous peoples by the existing IHRL documents, but also recognizes the legal status of indigenous peoples and confirms more rights for them by setting up the minimum standards of achievement, thus greatly raises the degree of protecting indigenous peoples by IHRL. UNDRIP is the milestone legal document in the history of IHR, as it stands for the development and perfection of the law system for protection of the peoples’ rights in IHRL. The document is importantly meaningful and gives much food for thought. As it is legally valuable, both importance and study should be given to it.This dissertation focuses on several legal problems relating with indigenous peoples’ rights and makes study and exploration on them. First, to analyses and discusses the concepts of nations, peoples, indigenous peoples and national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in legal terms, as well as the status and rights they accorded by IHRL, in order to make clear the differences between and connections of the status and rights they enjoy. Second, to explore some of important rights of indigenous peoples such as their right to self-determination, their land right, their right to natural environment and their cultural right, by discussing the meaning, the applicative scope, the jurisdiction and legal ground of these rights in IHRL. Third, to conclude the ideas and opinions of this dissertation on these legal problems on indigenous peoples’ rights by analyzing a great deal of literatures on the problems written and discussed the United States and the scholars in the academic field of IHRL.By this way of discussion, analysis and elaboration, this dissertation comes to the conclusion as following: though the provisions of UNDRIP are not jus cogens and have no legal binding on states, but they set up the minimum standards for protection of indigenous peoples and impose the obligations in morality and justice on states to protect indigenous peoples. These standards and norms, according to the international practices, will become international customary law and finally, in the future, become the legal norms that are jus cogens binding on states. However, UNDRIP represents not only the progress of the human rights deeds of the worldwide indigenous peoples, but also the new development in the field of IHRL. UNDRIP has significantly important legal meaning to the international protection of indigenous peoples, and the actual significance to the preservation of the biodiversity in global natural environment and cultural diversity in the human society. As for multinational or multiethnic states, particularly those containing indigenous peoples (no matter whether the state in which they live recognizes them or not), UNDRIP is a challenge to their policy, legal system and political arrangements, as well as their future relating policy-making and law-making. Multinational or multiethnic states, whether or not there are indigenous peoples, should take in the positive meaningful factors symbolized in UNDRIP, such as principles of fairness and justice, democracy and respect for human rights, equality and non-discrimination, good governance and good faith; the principles of cultural pluralism, respect for the rights of peoples and the dignity of peoples; the idea of harmonious interaction, coexistence and co-development among human diverse societies and cultures; the advocacy of respect for indigenous traditional knowledge, culture and customs, etc. At least, Multinational or multiethnic states should not pay no attention to the challenge UNDRIP has brought about and give responsive considerations to it.To achieve the purpose of the study, the structure of this dissertation consist of three parts, that is, introduction part, text part and conclusion part. The introduction part describes the meaning of the study, the information on the subject study status quo, the study outline and the main methods and ways to do the study, and induces the main problems discussed and the innovations sought by the dissertation . The conclusion part sums up the elaborations and gives out the opinion and suggestions. The text part is the core and the most important part of the dissertation, composed of twelve chapters, with each respectively independent but logically connected. The main content of each chapter summarized as following:Chapter 1 differentiates the concepts of "peoples" and "nation" in legal terms in IHRL and elaborates that the two legal terms are two different but interrelated concepts. A nation is a large community of peoples who have established their modern government and political system, while a people is a sub-national community. But they both are recognized by IHRL as the subject of the right to self-determination, namely, both of them are the right-holders or the beneficiaries of self-determination of the right to self-determination. In the discourse of IHRL, the concept of peoples is always closely associated with the right to self-determination, a basic human right that can be claimed on the international level.Chapter 2 comprehensively analyses the system of IRHL, considering it as an evolutionary and perfective system, as with the development of the human social life, human beings needs more rights to guarantee their own existence and development. Meanwhile, all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible and interdependent. According to the conception of modern human rights, the concept of collective right has been generally accepted in the international community. Collective human rights are the human rights and fundamental freedoms enjoyed by particular human groups, especially by ethnic groups. In much more general, collective human rights indicates the rights of peoples, as the rights of peoples take up the core position in collective human rights. The collective rights which have been proclaimed, confirmed and elaborated by IRHL documents are the equal right, the right to self-determination, the right to sovereignty over the natural wealth and resources, the right to environment, the right to peace and security, etc.Chapter 3, after analyzing various terms, concepts and definitions, points out that all those who identifies themselves and are called as indigenous peoples have the same characteristics . Indigenous peoples are categorized as such because of their "indigenousness". The so-called "indigenousness" can be included as being preemptory in time; geographically, living in a particular relatively fixed area; having historical continuity with particular societies, especially the pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories; sticking to the traditional culture which is closely dependent on natural environment. There is no definition of indigenous peoples in UNDRIP, but the lack of definition should never constitute the obstacle to the protection of and indigenous peoples and the resolution of their problems by IHRL and the UN mechanism. As a legal term, the concept of indigenous peoples has its broad and narrow senses. As far as the type is concerned, the worldwide indigenous peoples are sub-national peoples. Indigenous peoples in broad sense fall within the scope of the beneficiaries of the rights proclaimed and confirmed by UNDRIP and can be categorized into three kinds.Chapter 4 analyzes the form and evolution of the indigenous problems and gets to their root of the matter. Historically, indigenous peoples’ existence and development were interrupted by the invasion, subjugation and colonization by the western colonialism, particularly in the modern history. At the present time, their existence and development have been once again threatened by industrialism-oriented modernization and globalization. They have been struggling to survive and develop in the history and in reality and seek for their own space to exist and develop under the various pressures and threats. Indigenous problems seemingly involve the existence and development of indigenous peoples, but in essence, they involve indigenous human rights problem. Non-respect for indigenous peoples’ dignity as peoples leads to non-respect for their rights as peoples, and finally entails that they have lost their prerequisite and basic guarantee for existence and development. They need urgently states and the international community recognize their identity and status as peoples having uniqueness of their own, as well as their collective and individual rights as such.Chapter 5 considers that anthropologists are the most authoritative to have voice in the indigenous problems, after analyzing the connection between indigenous peoples and anthropology. Their connection lies in the fact that indigenous peoples has shaped anthropology and the latter has truly recorded the circumstances of the indigenous peoples and made its own academic contribution to introduction of indigenous culture. In the recent years, anthropologists are active in assuming the social and moral responsibility for indigenous culture and its creator, that is, indigenous peoples. With the efforts made together by indigenous peoples and anthropologists, indigenous problems have been put on the important agenda for consideration by the international community, thus making the indigenous problems enter the view of IHRL protection.Chapter 6 discusses the active role exerted respectively by both indigenous peoples and international community in struggle for indigenous peoples’ rights. Having understood the indigenous peoples’ values and contributions to the human society, the problems that the indigenous human rights should be seriously treated and resolved were put on the agenda of the international legislation. UN’s attitude, understanding and way of resolution to the indigenous problems have been made much progress. UN has set up a series of mechanisms to resolve the indigenous problems. On one hand, these mechanisms help to hear the complaints from indigenous peoples, and on the other hand, in the process of the negotiation on UNDRIP, they act as a bridge between indigenous peoples and states, the both stake-holder sides, for them to well communicate. With the efforts made by indigenous peoples, international civil society, together with UN’s relating mechanisms, UNDRIP at last has come into being as the representative achievement of the indigenous peoples human rights deeds.Chapter 7 explores the theories about problem of indigenous peoples’ legal status. UNDRIP has established Indigenous peoples’ legal status, thus resolved the problem. According to UNDRIP, indigenous peoples are recognized as peoples and entitled to the corresponding legal status. That is to say, indigenous peoples have the status of international personnel and their collective rights as peoples are protected by IHRL. And under the particular conditions, they can become the quasi-subject of International Law. Based on this legal status, indigenous peoples are entitled not only to all kinds of rights provided by "Bill of International Human Rights", but also other peculiar rights, such as the right to self-determination, the right to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources, and the right to conclude treaty and agreement, etc.Chapter 8 by analyzing the various theories about the right to self-determination and the right to self-government or autonomy, elaborates that the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination does not entail including the right to secession from the country where they live. On one side, the importance of promoting and protecting the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination should be emphasized, on the other side, emphasis should be given that such promotion and protection should be beneficial to the political and social steadiness of the country where they live. Only if the government is a legitimate and democratic one, having full representation of all the peoples including indigenous peoples, the right of indigenous peoples to self-government or autonomy, that is, the side of internal self-determination is fully guaranteed and fulfilled, in such circumstances, if indigenous peoples insist on exercising the side of external self-determination, it is impossible for them to get recognition and support by the international community.Chapter 9 deals with the importance of indigenous peoples’ land right and their right to natural environment. But there exists various manifestations of violations to their land entitlement and their right to environment. So the legal basis and solutions should be found out to maintain these rights. Indigenous land rights and their right to natural environment are indigenous peoples fundamental rights and the prerequisites of obtaining the necessities for their existence and development, and maintaining their cultural uniqueness. Therefore these rights should be given priority for consideration and emphasis. Intrusion on the indigenous land and violation of indigenous natural environment is not merely a long-term historical problem, but a actual problem that has taken place and is taking place. Although IHRL has made response to this, it relies on states and indigenous peoples to take a multitude of measures to maintain the rights of indigenous peoples to lands and natural environment.Chapter 10 elaborates the concept and value of indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage and traditional knowledge and discusses the principles of and approaches to indigenous cultural rights. Considering that indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage and traditional knowledge are vital to indigenous peoples themselves and that their cultural heritage and traditional knowledge are at stake with destruction and disappearance, the principle of the common heritage of humanity, the principle of cultural diversity, the principle of indigenous peoples being the main beneficiary, etc. should be persisted, and all the social strength should be mobilized to actively, positively and conscientiously to maintain the cultural right of indigenous peoples.Chapter 11 discusses the right of indigenous peoples to natural environment. The discussion is related to the actual conditions and the value of the exercise of the right, the framework of the system and the program of action about the protection of the right in IHRL. The right to environment has been confirmed by a series of international law documents in IHRL and International Environment law and is now considered as an indivisible part of "the new generation of the human rights". These international 1a documents has formed a series of protection standards and principle framework, within which being faced with the problem of environment, in the use and development of natural wealth and resources., indigenous peoples have the right to free and informed consent, the right to participation, the right to avoidance of adverse impact, the right to share the benefit, the right to get fair and equal compensation for damage, the right to ask for restoration of the polluted and destructed environment, etc.Chapter 12 concludes the achievement in protection of the national minorities rights in China and introduces the Chinese government’s basic attitude to and position on the international human right protection. China has creatively established the national minorities regional autonomy regime, which conforms with the reality and conditions of China. The new-typed national relationship with the characteristics of equality, solidarity, friendliness and mutual aid has been established, and the remarkable accomplishments has been got in the field of protecting the national minorities human rights. In addition, China has been active to participate in the international cooperation and the international campaign to protect the national minorities human rights. In a line of international human right campaigns, China sticks to the correct position, opposes colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination, and has done a great deal of work for the international community in the national minorities human right deeds. UNDRIP which China voted for is useful for us in understanding the new idea, tendency and approach, etc. of human rights protection and will give us some enlightenment in all dimensions. However, still we will take our ways as dominant factors, choose and follow what is good, work toward the further perfection of our ethno-national legal system and regional national minorities autonomy regime, increasingly arise the level of national minorities human rights protection, and make the Chinese characteristic contribution to the maintenance of international human rights deeds .更多还原