{"created":"2023-06-20T15:59:00.003046+00:00","id":3956,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"db9266fd-7ef6-4d13-b87d-663beb859710"},"_deposit":{"created_by":17,"id":"3956","owners":[17],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"3956"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00003956","sets":["345:376"]},"author_link":["7311"],"item_9_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2008-02-29","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"3","bibliographicPageEnd":"503","bibliographicPageStart":"307","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"32","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"国立民族学博物館研究報告"},{"bibliographic_title":"Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_9_description_4":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"　2007 年9 月に国際連合（国連）総会は国際連合先住民権利宣言を採択した\n（国連総会決議61/295）。国連がその公的な意思として採択し表明した初めての\n先住権に関する包括的な規定である。国連の下部組織である作業部会がこの宣\n言の最初の草案を起草したのは1993 年だった。総会が決議するまでに14 年も\nの間隔があるのは，宣言の内容について国連加盟国が合意に達するのに，それ\nだけ長期間を要したからである。その間，国連の外部では，1993 年の起草案は\n先住権に関する事実上の0 0 0 0 国際標準として機能してきた。国際法の専門家のみな\nらず，先住民運動の活発な諸国では一般の間で，さらに国際機関や各国政府に\nおいてさえも，そのように受けとめられてきた。さらに，先住民組織はその運\n動を通してこの文書の影響力を高めてきた。この文書は事実上，先住民自身が\n発した一つの宣言―「1993 年宣言」と呼ぶべきもの―と見ることができる。\nこれら状況的条件に加えて，この1993 年宣言は，先住権をその根拠とともに\n包括的に述べる均整のとれた構成と，よく練られた法的言語の表現によって，\nそれ自体が説得力に富む文書である。1993 年宣言は2007 年決議に対しても，\nそれを評価する標準となりえている。1993 年宣言を参照すれば，2007 年決議\nが多くの修正を受けたものであること，その修正は加盟国政府の国内先住民に\n対する利害と懸念を反影したものであることが，判明する。\n　この論文で私は，2007 年決議ではなく1993 年宣言を取り上げて，宣言が先\n住権を要求するその構造を分析する。分析の焦点は三つのテーマ，つまり，先\n住民としての権利，民としての基本的権利，復権のための国際的および国内的\nな制度的枠組みである。要求する権利の全体は，一つの独自の民に保障される\nべき「民の集合的生命権」を構成する。この権利を先住民は拒絶されてきた。\n1993 年宣言は条文で先住民の権利を網羅している。それが可能だったのは，先\n住民の歴史経験を総括して「民族絶滅と文化絶滅」と認識するからである。\n1993 年宣言は国際法規を目指した文書であり，そこに述べる権利要求は，民と\nしての集合的生命権の要求を初めとして，先住民に関わる既存の国際法の体系\nに変革を要求する。しかし，2007 年決議はこの種の変革を達成してはいない。\n逆に国連加盟国は，条文の文言を操作することによって，1993 年宣言の権利要\n求の構造を曖昧にすることに成功している。2007 年決議はもはや先住民の歴史\n経験「民族絶滅と文化絶滅」に言及してはいない。\n　論文の第二の課題として，国際法において先住民が彼らの権利を奪われ，彼\nらの存在が不可視にされた歴史を，歴史を遡る方向で追跡する。とりわけ国連\nと国際労働機構（ILO）が採択した国際法規が考察の焦点である。その後の歴\n史で先住民を不可視にした分岐点は，1950 年代初めにベルギー政府の主張した\n所謂「ベルギー・テーゼ」をめぐる論争だった。このテーゼによってベルギー\n政府は，国連の脱植民地化の事業について多数の加盟国が選択しつつあった実\n施形態に，異議を唱えた。「反植民地勢力」に対抗して，ベルギー・テーゼは\n国連の脱植民地化の事業の基底にある特性を暴いていった。ベルギー政府が全\nての「非自治の先住の民0 0 0 0 」に平等の処遇を要求したのに対し，国連は脱植民地\n化の対象を「非自治の地域0 0 」つまり欧米宗主国の海外植民地に限定した。ベル\nギー・テーゼによれば，「反植民地勢力」が追求する脱植民地化のモデルはラ\nテンアメリカ諸国の「革命」経験だった。それは，植民地が宗主国支配から解\n放される一方で，国内に先住民に対する植民地支配を持続させるモデルであり，\n実際，1950 年代以降に独立したアジア・アフリカの多くの新興国が，このモデ\nルに従って，国内に先住民支配を持続させた。この国連による脱植民地化が再\n定義した国家像は，国内に先住民支配が埋め込まれた構造の国家だった。\n　国連の素通りした「非自治の」先住民を対象として，ILO は107 号条約を採\n択し，「統合」政策を推進しようとした。107 号条約は，「先住0 0 」諸人口に法的\n定義を与えた最初の国際法である。植民地征服という歴史的起点に言及して\n「先住0 0 」諸人口を捉えるこの「ILO 定義」は，その後の先住民に関する概念的\nな思考に影響力を発揮し，先住民自身の先住民に関する思考でさえ拘束した。\n107 号条約は国家に「後見」役を与え，「被後見」の先住民を「より発達した国\n民共同体」に統合することによって，国家に先住民「文化絶滅」政策を推進さ\nせようとする。ILO の統合政策は植民地主義の第二次世界大戦後における形態\nである。\n　1993 年宣言は，国連とILO による脱植民地化の政策を含めて，植民地支配\nの歴史からの回復を要求する。この論文で行う先住民の権利の歴史的考察は，\n共通に受け入れられている「先住民」の定義について，見直しが必要であるこ\nとを示唆する。先住民の決定的な示差的特徴として，植民地征服に言及するこ\nとは不適切である。1993 年宣言は，国家その他の外的エイジェントによる「先\n住民」の定義と認定を，拒否している。「先住民」の定義と認定は先住民自身\nの自己決定権に属すべきである。それと同時に，1993 年宣言は先住民を，「民\n族絶滅と文化絶滅」を被らされてきた民と描いている。1993 年宣言は先住民に\n対する呼びかけを含意してもいる。1993 年宣言は先住民運動の用具であるに留\nまらず，運動自体の容器でもある。","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"},{"subitem_description":"In September 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the\nDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (GA Resolution 61/295), the\nfirst comprehensive instrument of international law on the indigenous rights\nthat the UN decided and issued as its official will. The initial draft of the Declaration\nwas issued as early as in 1993 by a working group of a lowest organisational\nstatus in the United Nations (UN). A long period of fourteen years\nsince then was necessary for member states of the UN to arrive at the final\nagreement on the text of the Declaration. During that time, on the other hand,\nthe initial draft of 1993 has been functioning as a de facto international standard\nfor the indigenous rights. The 1993 draft was broadly accepted as such\nby academic specialists of international law, by the public in those countries\nwhere indigenous peoples were active in their movements, and even by international\nand national authorities. Indigenous organisations through their movements\nhave invested the draft with influence, to the extent that it now deserve\nto be called the 1993 Declaration proclaimed by indigenous peoples themselves.\nBesides those situational conditions, the draft itself is plausible and\npersuasive in the coherent composition of the text, which elucidates the whole\nvariety of indigenous rights, together with their reasonable bases, in deliberately\nselected legal language. The 1993 declaration may even be referred to as\na standard for assessing the 2007 resolution. This comparison reveals that the\nlatter has received quite a few changes, which reflect the interests and anxieties\nheld by the UN member states concerning their domestic policy on indigenous\npeoples.\nIn this paper, I will take up the 1993 Declaration, instead of the 2007\nresolution, as the primary data and analyse the structure of the indigenous\nrights as stated in the declaration. The analysis will focus on three themes:\nthe rights specific to indigenous peoples, the rights equally fundamental to\nall peoples, and the national and international framework for the implementation\nof the proclaimed rights. The whole set of those rights should be categorised\nas the collective right of existence as a distinctive people. The right has\nbeen categorically refused to the indigenous peoples. The 1993 Declaration\nenumerated those rights in a thoroughly comprehensive way, a feature based\non the recognition of ethnocide and cultural genocide, the historical experience\nshared by indigenous peoples. The 1993 Declaration explicitly demands\na reform in the current regime of international law circumscribing the indigenous\npeoples. The 2007 resolution failed to attain this sort of reform. On\nthe contrary, the UN member states successfully obscured the right-claiming\nstructure of the 1993 Declaration by manipulating the language used in the\nresolution. Thus, the ‘ethnocide and cultural genocide’, representing the whole\nhistorical experiences of suppression against indigenous peoples, has been\nentirely deleted from the final resolution.\nAs the second objective of this paper, I will trace the historical process,\nin a retrospective way, how indigenous peoples have been deprived of their\nrights and made invisible in international law, particularly in the legal instruments\nenacted by international organisations, the UN and the International\nLabour Organisation (ILO). One of the crucial points of departure for the subsequent\nhistory of deprivation is found in the way the debate on the so-called\nBelgian Thesis was concluded in the early 1950s in the UN. Through this set\nof arguments, the Belgian Government contested against the way majority\nmember states liked to implement the program of decolonisation, one of the\nmajor missions of the nascent UN. Confronting the ‘anti-colonial block’, the\nBelgian Thesis unmasked quite a few fundamental features of the decolonisation\nconducted by the UN. Whereas the Belgian Government requested equal\ntreatments of all ‘non-self-governing indigenous peoples’, the UN decidedly\nconcentrated its efforts of decolonisation on the ‘non-self-governing territories’,\ni.e. the overseas colonies of imperial powers. The Belgian Thesis suggested\nthat Latin American countries demanded liberation of those colonies\njust in the way they themselves had been liberated from their metropolises.\nAccording to this model, all colonies should attain liberation from the colonial\nregime; but at the same time, the newly independent states should inevitably\ninherit from the former regime the colonial rule of indigenous peoples\nwithin their domestic jurisdiction. Actually many countries in Asia and Africa\nthat attained independence in the1950s and thereafter followed this model and\nmaintained the colonial rule of indigenous peoples living within their territorial\nborders. Thus, the program of decolonisation conducted by the UN redefined\nthe idea of the sovereign state, which structurally comprises indigenous\npeoples under colonial suppression within its territory.\nTargeting at those non-self-governing indigenous peoples left aside\nby the UN, the ILO enacted Covenant no. 107 and proposed a coordinated\nframework of integration policy for those peoples, who were now identified\nas ‘indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent\ncountries’. Covenant no. 107 for the first time gave a legal definition to\n‘indigenous’ populations in terms of the historical moment of colonial conquest.\nThis definition, which may be named ‘the ILO definition’, has been\nexerting an enduring influence and constraining even indigenous peoples\nthemselves in their thought on the concept of ‘indigenous’ peoples. The ILO’s\npolicy of integration represented a post-WWII version of colonialism, assigning\nthe role of guardian to the states and guiding them to cultural genocide of\nthe ward, indigenous peoples, by way of ‘integrating’ those peoples into ‘more\nadvanced national communities’.\nThe 1993 Declaration demands that the history of colonisation, including\nthe policies of decolonisation conducted by the UN and the ILO, should be\nundone. The historical review conducted in this paper on the rights of indigenous\npeoples suggests that a revision is necessary for commonly accepted definitions\nof the term ‘indigenous’ peoples. The ILO definition of the ‘indigenous’\npeoples, particularly the reference to the initial moment of colonial conquest,\nturns out to be irrelevant for conceiving the indigenous peoples. The 1993\nDeclaration refuses any trial of the states and other external agents to define\nand identify ‘indigenous peoples’; the definition and identification of ‘indigenous\npeoples’ should belong to the right of self-determination of the indigenous\npeoples themselves. At the same time, the 1993 Declaration represents\nindigenous peoples as those peoples who have been subjected to ethnocide\nand cultural genocide. The 1993 Declaration connotes a calling to indigenous\npeoples. As such, it provides indigenous peoples not merely with a tool of\nindigenous movements. It provides the conceptual framework for their indigenous\nmovements.","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_9_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.15021/00003948","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_9_publisher_33":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"国立民族学博物館"}]},"item_9_publisher_34":{"attribute_name":"出版者（英）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"National Museum of Ethnology"}]},"item_9_source_id_10":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN00091943","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_9_source_id_8":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"0385-180X","subitem_source_identifier_type":"ISSN"}]},"item_9_version_type_16":{"attribute_name":"著者版フラグ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_version_resource":"http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85","subitem_version_type":"VoR"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"清水, 昭俊"},{"creatorName":"シミズ, アキトシ","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"},{"creatorName":"Shimizu, Akitoshi","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{},{},{},{}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2015-11-19"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"KH_032_3_001.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"2.1 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"KH_032_3_001.pdf","url":"https://minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/3956/files/KH_032_3_001.pdf"},"version_id":"ac6cdfc6-8875-4832-b65a-714e488099b1"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"民｜民の集合的生命権｜民の自己決定権（自決権）｜ジェノサイド｜文化絶滅（文化的ジェノサイド）｜脱植民地化｜植民地支配｜ベルギー・ テーゼ｜「先住民」のILO 定義","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"peoples｜the collective right of existence｜peoples’ right of self-determination｜ethnocide","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"｜cultural genocide｜decolonisation｜colonialism｜the Belgian Thesis｜the ILO definition of ‘indigenous peoples’","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"先住民，植民地支配，脱植民地化 : 国際連合先住民権利宣言と国際法","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"先住民，植民地支配，脱植民地化 : 国際連合先住民権利宣言と国際法"},{"subitem_title":"Indigenous Peoples, Colonialism and ‘Decolonisation’ : The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in International Law","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"9","owner":"17","path":["376"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2010-02-16"},"publish_date":"2010-02-16","publish_status":"0","recid":"3956","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["先住民，植民地支配，脱植民地化 : 国際連合先住民権利宣言と国際法"],"weko_creator_id":"17","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-06-20T17:21:41.746952+00:00"}