Abstract
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples now represents the minimum international standard on indigenous rights. A qualitative analysis of state responses to this emerging indigenous rights regime produces some curious results, including state compliance, non-compliance, under-compliance, partial compliance, and also a pattern of ‘over-compliance’ in indigenous rights. Over-compliance, a counter-intuitive behaviour in international relations, occurs when a state’s legal or policy behaviour exceeds its treaty or international normative commitments. New Zealand and Canada both demonstrate such a pattern of indigenous rights over-compliance. A comparative case study of these two over-compliant states demonstrates that over-compliance in indigenous rights occurs when several conditions develop and intersect to propel a state towards a state-centric model of reconciliation. The article argues that Canada and New Zealand are over-compliant in indigenous rights not because they are necessarily progressive in indigenous rights but because they are actually resisting the emerging indigenous rights discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
