Friday, November 1, 2019
The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights Essay
The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights - Essay Example With regard to the exercise of the cultural rights protected under article 27 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], the Committee observes that culture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of life associated with the use of land resources, especially in the case of indigenous peoples. Discuss whether Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which New Zealand is a signatory, is effective in protecting the right of MAORI to enjoy Maori culture in New Zealand. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights gives to the Maori culture the right to engage in fishing activities and it reiterates its obligations to ensure that these rights are recognized. The Fisheries Settlement has achieved this to a large extent in as much as it gave them the right to revenue through quota together with Maori participation in the Sealords deal in what may be called as the modern day embodiment of Maori claims to the commercial fishery. In this way, Maori exercises effective control in a company through their shareholding and their representatives on the Board of Directors and has placed them in an unprecedented position to expand their presence in the market through the acquisition of further quota and fishing assets as well as through diversification in international catching processing and marketing. Its implementation is ensured and protected by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and its companies as well as individual tribes. Apart from this, the Fisheries settlement has come a long way in protecting non-commercial fishing i.e. for customary food gathering and a successful attempt has been made to recognize the special relationship between Maori and places of importance for customary food gathering. It may be noted that the right of minorities under Article 27 is not unlimited. They are subject to reasonable regulation provided these measures have a reasonable and ob jective justification and are consistent with the other provision of the Covenant and most importantly do not result in a denial of right. In Re Mahuika V New Zealand, it was held by one of the committee members that as far as in relation to Article 27 of the Covenant, an overall settlement of fisheries claims is found to be compatible to Article 27 provided that the conditions of effective consultation and securing the sustainability of culturally significant forms of Maori fishing are met. The Human Rights Committee was of the view that there is no breach of any article of the Covenant. In pursuance of the protection of the rights of the Maoris under Article 27 of the Covenant, the State has ensured that through a tedious and complex process of consultation with the various Maori groups it has attempted to secure broad Maori support to a nationwide settlement and regulation of fishing activities. It was only when there was substantial Maori support that the Settlement was enacted. It would not be out of place to mention that the consultation process gave special attention to the cultural and religious significance of fishing for the Maori inter alia to securing the possibility of Maori individuals and communities to engage themselves in non-commercial fishing activities. In this way, the State has taken necessary steps to ensure that the Fisheries Settlement and its enactment through legislation including the Quota Management System are in line with article 27.