In this article, I focus on how the principles of state sovereignty and indigenous self-determi-nation figured in the discussions leading up to the establishment of the PF and how state and indigenous peoples’ representatives justified their points of view. The investigation brings to light the ways in which indigenous-state relations affected the outcome, that is, the kind of forum that was eventually established.
The research for the article drew on scholarship examining international norms, institu-tions, legitimacy and organisations (e.g. Florini, 1996; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). The scholarship conceives of the UN as ‘a norm platform’ where the responsibilities and actions of states are discussed. In the debates to this end, the UN, as well as other international organi-sations, acts to promote goals that are considered good and appropriate (e.g. human rights).
The UN has a certain authority that is impossible for any single state to attain (Barnett and
Finnemore, 2004). Hence, the organisation is also a focal point for discussing new norms on state actions pertaining to indigenous peoples.
In the article, I consider indigenous NGOs as norm entrepreneurs that actively try to build norms and achieve the recognition of new norms by states (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). As norm entrepreneurs, they engage in framing in the effort to get new norms accept-ed. This means that they describe, name and interpret issues of concern to them and suggest solutions. The debate on new norms then centres on whether emerging norms are consistent with existing international law and thus whether they are acceptable to states. New norms have to be seen as extending existing ones or making changes to them that are deemed neces-sary (Florini, 1996). In this light, norms are intersubjective and thus platforms that actors can use to justify their actions or to persuade others to change their course of action. This is where the possibility for change in norms occurs (Finnemore, 1996). Through their framing efforts, indigenous peoples challenge state rule in indigenous areas, portraying that control – once considered legitimate in international politics – as illegitimate. Successful framing makes the issue at hand resonate with current understandings on, for example, appropriate state behav-iour with regard to human rights, and becomes a new way of talking about the issue.
The frames invoked by indigenous peoples that figured prominently in state-indigenous relations and the outcome of the process leading up to the establishment of the PF were indi-geneity, self-determination, collective rights, and recognition. In the first frame, the issue of definition centred on whether it was possible to establish a forum without having a definition of ‘indigenous’ and thus which peoples would be included. Indigenous peoples framed any outside – that is non-indigenous – attempts to articulate such a definition as illegitimate and considered them threats.
The second frame dealt with the demand for indigenous self-determination. Indigenous peoples emphasised that they should be seen as equals with states. Self-determination was presented as the only solution to their situation, which is a result of colonialism. For indig-enous peoples, gaining self-determination is not a matter of being granted a new right but recovering an existing one that has been illegitimately taken from them. For states, these demands are troubling, because the end result of the developments they would entail is un-known. The demands have traditionally been perceived by states as threatening their political unity and territorial integrity.
The third frame involved the issue of recognition. Indigenous peoples demand recogni-tion not as just minorities but as indigenous peoples and as collectivities. Rights have tradi-tionally been individual and states have sought to uphold their unity, thus making claims for collective recognition difficult. This frame was used by indigenous peoples to assert that the human rights of the peoples could not be realised unless they were recognised as indigenous peoples rather than as just another minority. Indigenous peoples framed the issue as a re-claiming of their lost status as nations, whereas states viewed the claim as a new demand.
The fourth frame was collective rights, whose recognition indigenous peoples deemed necessary for their survival. Here the peoples invoked a perspective that centred on histori-cal injustices. The correction of these injustices was perceived by states as possibly infringing their unity and resources. Demands by indigenous peoples in this regard, for example, re-claiming collective land and resource rights, were considered threats by the states.
In short, the process leading up to the establishment of the PF saw a constant balancing between the basic institutions of state sovereignty and indigenous self-determination. The self-determination and recognition frames used by indigenous peoples during the establish-ment process sought to persuade other actors that if indigenous peoples did not have equal status with states in the PF, the new forum would not be legitimate. Collective rights and self-determination were the most difficult issues for states. These demands were troubling for states, because the outcomes of addressing the issues involved would be impossible to predict.
The kind of forum that the PF turned out to be – an expert body with no power to re-solve conflicts or human rights abuses but with a broad mandate under the ECOSOC – is in line with states’ views. The Forum cannot decide on issues that entail high stakes for states, for example land rights. Thus, in many cases, state sovereignty prevailed over indigenous self-determination in the establishment process. Indigenous peoples envisioned a forum that would have decision-making power and equal participation of indigenous and state repre-sentatives. Accordingly, the lack of decision-making power of the PF when eventually estab-lished was a disappointment for the peoples. It was clear that states were not ready to establish a forum that would accord the peoples decision-making powers and acknowledge them as participants on an equal footing. The equal status of indigenous and state members of the PF and its openness to the participation of indigenous organisations can be considered achieve-ments for indigenous peoples. The article concludes that the outcome, the established forum, largely represents a compromise in the conflict between state sovereignty and indigenous self-determination.
Nation-states have had to accept indigenous peoples as actors in international politics. In-deed, there has been a large increase in the number of indigenous peoples taking part in the UN processes, among others. What is more important to note, however, is that this growth in numbers has taken place in an environment that has traditionally been hostile to the de-mands of the peoples. The article analyses this phenomenon as the result of indigenous peo-ples acting as norm entrepreneurs, who have been able to persuade, shame and put pressure on states to accept them as distinct, self-determining peoples.
In sum, my interpretation of the frames is that they not only served as tactics whereby the peoples pushed for a certain kind of a forum to be established but also functioned as tools by which the peoples asserted their self-determination. The context in which this took place – UN meetings – was established by the very states that colonised the peoples. The internation-al norm of state sovereignty has largely taken shape in the course of colonising indigenous peoples. The reaction of the peoples has been to assert that they constitute self-determining nations. That the international struggle of indigenous peoples to (re)gain self-determination has taken place largely within the UN can be interpreted as an indication that international indigeneity – as we see it today – has been formed through state affirmation. However, this political environment has also offered indigenous peoples tools to assert and constitute them-selves as self-determining peoples: their possibilities for political agency are not limited to whatever the states happen to grant them.
However, a focus on the conventional ‘macro-level’ of state sovereignty and indigenous self-determination could only take the analysis so far. With the development of the research and the acquisition of new materials, the need for alternative approaches to the study of
in-digenous peoples in the UN became evident. Accordingly, the subsequent articles employ ap-proaches chosen and refined to capture the complex operation of power, a process that plays out on a more subtle level than that discussed in this first article.
5.2 Article 2: Beyond shaming and official politics: mundane and