Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Apirana Mahuika et al v. New Zealand

No description
by

ingrid johanson

on 17 October 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Apirana Mahuika et al v. New Zealand

Apirana Mahuika et al
v.
New Zealand
Environmental Rights

by Ingrid Johanson
designed by Péter Puklus for Prezi
FACTS:
- Fisheries Act 1989 and QMS
- Claimed 'contrary to Treaty'
-Maori suggest purchase of 50% of Sealords as compensation
-Govt agreed, but would 'discharge and extinguish' all current and future fishing entitlement claims (customary/tradition fishing practice continues)
-Agreement 'Settlement Deed' of 1992

Minority group objected: claimed...
1. non-informed decision making
2. consulted Maori groups not representative

1st: HCNZ 'Bill of Rights' : denied interim order

2nd: Waitangi Tribunal affirmed action, but encouraged new legislation
-1992 'Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Bill' enacted
THE COMPLAINT TO HRC


Art 27: minority's right to economic, social and cultural development and 'right to culture'

Art 14. ‘rights and obligations in a law suit '

THE STATE
- Art 27: limitations for 'environ sustainability'

- ‘modern day embodiment’
-Maori: 40% fishing industry, 15% population
- customary practices


-Art 14: No violation as Maoris can access courts, just not on fishing disputes as settled due to MOU

-Valid as extensive measures were taken to gain representative voice
-Challenges complainant's authority to represent Maoris
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE NOTED...
-Yes, Maori constitutes a minority

-Yes, Fisheries 'essential element of their culture'

-Yes, a minority shall not be denied of their right to enjoy culture



Apirana Mahuika et al v. New Zealand
OUTLINE:
Apirana Mahuika et al vs. New Zealand (2000)
Human Rights Committee complaints mechanism
Maori group claimed violation of Art 1, Art 27 and Art 14

Clash between: Indigenous 'right to culture' and govt obligation to ensure sustainable practices/manage resources







Signing the Treaty of Waitangi
HOWEVER...
- Maori were involved in decision making
- Continue to benefit from tradition economy
- Right to appear in court not restricted
- Concern at Maori division yet govt not at fault
-Concl: No breach of Art 27 or Art 14

Therefore:
No breach of Maori's Rights.

Treaty of Waitangi 1840
-‘the full exercise and undistributed possession of their lands, forests, fisheries and other properties'

-traded sovereignty and government became the Crown (disputed: translations different)

-Waitangi Tribunal hears complaints: Treaty not enforceable
Greenpeace anti-Sealords Protests: conflicting interests
Treaty of Waitangi
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 8 YEARS LATER...
Full transcript