Opinio Juris http://www.opiniojuris.org/ en-us 2008-07-03T15:07+00:00 ECHR Decision on Confessions Under the Threat of Torture http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1215062415.shtml Antoine Buyse at the ECHR Blog has posted an analysis of Gafgen v. Germany, a decision handed down by the ECHR on Monday concerning the admissibility of evidence... Chris Borgen 2008-07-03T05:07+00:00 the ECHR Blog has posted an analysis of Gafgen v. Germany, a decision handed down by the ECHR on Monday concerning the admissibility of evidence resulting from statements made under the threat of torture. Here's the background:
In 2003, the applicant, Magnus Gäfgen, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of J., the eleven year old son, of a rich bankers family from Frankfurt am Main. Gäfgen had lured the boy into his home and subsequently killed him. That same day he dropped the corpse of the boy into a pond. He had then demanded a ransom of one million euros from the family, without disclosing that J. was already dead. Shortly after picking up the ransom, Gäfgen was arrested.

The case centres on what occurred next: thinking that the boy was still alive but in grave danger, the police officers questioning Gäfgen threatened him with considerable pain if he did not reveal where the child was. As a result, Gäfgen disclosed where the corpse could be found. At the start of the trial, Gäfgen complained that his confession had been made under the threat of torture.
Buyse explains that:
The Court first concluded that the threat, would it have been carried out, would have amounted to torture and that a threat of torture amounted to inhuman treatment. The threat itself, however, was not torture.
The opinion then states:
the Court finds that the treatment the applicant was threatened with would, if carried out, amount to torture. However, the questioning lasted for some ten minutes only and, as was established in the criminal proceedings against the police officers (...), took place in an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions owing to the fact that the police officers, who were completely exhausted and under extreme pressure, believed that they had only a few hours to save J.'s life, elements which can be regarded as mitigating factors...
Buyse's post considers this issue of mitigation (which he finds "somewhat puzzling" in light of the absolute prohibition on torture) and the balancing test that the ECHR seems to use in deciding whether or not torture has taken place. For a full explanation of these issues, as well as how this affects evidentiary and fair trial issues under the European Convention, see his full post.
]]> Lubanga Released -- In Theory http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1215026433.shtml As I anticipated a few days ago following the UN's refusal to provide the judges with meaningful access to the disputed evidence, Trial Chamber I has ordered Thomas Lubanga... Kevin Jon Heller 2008-07-02T19:07+00:00 a few days ago following the UN's refusal to provide the judges with meaningful access to the disputed evidence, Trial Chamber I has ordered Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's unconditional and immediate release:
30. As just set out, the Chamber's Decision stayed the proceedings sine die because of the present impossibility of trying the accused fairly. It follows that the detention of the accused cannot be justified in order to ensure his appearance at trial or to safeguard the investigation, because the trial (which was the result of the investigation) has been stayed. Furthermore, in the absence of the prospect of a trial, the accused cannot be held in custody or subjected to provisional release as purely preventative measures to deter him from committing further crimes.
The Trial Chamber's decision, however, does not mean that Lubanga will walk out of the Hague anytime soon. First, despite releasing him "unconditionally" and "immediately," the Court stayed his actual release pending appeal of its order by the Prosecutor:
35. Trial Chamber I orders the release of the accused, but since by Rule 154 of the Rules an appeal may be filed no later than 5 days from the date upon which the party filing the appeal is notified of the decision, this order shall not be enforced until the expiry of the 5 day time limit, and, furthermore, if an appeal is filed within the 5 day time-limit against the order granting release and if a request is made in the appeal for suspensive effect, the accused shall not leave detention until the Appeals Chamber has resolved whether or not the effect of the order granting release is to be suspended.
The Prosecutor will no doubt ask the Appeals Chamber to suspend the release order, which means that Lubanga will remain in detention until the Chamber resolves the appeal, however long that takes.

Second — and I doubt this aspect of the order will receive much media attention — the Trial Chamber indicated that Lubanga will be released only if a State is willing to take him:
36. It is to be noted, finally, that by Rule 185 of the Rules, an order releasing the accused shall only be put into effect after arrangements have been made for his transfer to a State that is obliged to receive him. It follows that these arrangements should not be implemented until the 5 day time-limit, set out above, has expired.
That requirement could be a serious problem for Lubanga. I predicted in my forthcoming article "What Happens to the Acquitted?" that ICC acquittees will find it no less difficult to find new homes than ICTR acquittees like Ntagerura and Rwamakuba, and I am confident — sadly — that Lubanga's "release" will prove me right. There is no way the DRC will take him; he is, after all, a rebel. And it is very unlikely that any other State will be enthusiastic about having an accused war criminal walking free on its territory. So I fear that Lubanga may end up sharing the same fate as Ntagerura and Rwamakuba: being "free" to enjoy living as a virtual prisoner in a UN safehouse. ]]> A Response to Galit Sarfaty http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214934863.shtml Sarfaty’s reply addresses a fundamental problem with conflating norms with binding legal rights. In my article, I argue that the classification of a potential human right—like participatory development—may be seen... Martin Totaro 2008-07-02T17:07+00:00 Sarfaty’s reply addresses a fundamental problem with conflating norms with binding legal rights. In my article, I argue that the classification of a potential human right—like participatory development—may be seen as operating on a continuum. On one end of the continuum exists a norm. On the other end exists a rule of customary international law. As a norm “crystallizes,” it has the potential to move along the continuum toward attaining recognition as legal right. My article suggests that, while the norm/law continuum is fluid and dynamic, the current requirements of CIL mandate that an international human rights norm not be viewed as an international human rights law until states and major intergovernmental organizations like the World Bank consistently practice participatory development out of a sense of legal obligation.

Sarfaty responds by correctly noting that “it is difficult to empirically determine when a norm is being internalized out of a sense of legal obligation as opposed to moral obligation.” As Andrew Guzman and others have pointed out, one reason for this difficulty is that major international actors talk and act, but do they really “think?” If not, then we are left with studying what these actors say and do to understand whether these actions are taken out of a sense of legal obligation. With respect to participatory development, that means looking at how the World Bank and its biggest donor engage in the practice of participatory development.

The examples I provide demonstrate that the World Bank has been slowly internalizing some version of a participatory development norm. The Bank has devoted a large number of resources in an attempt to practice (or, at a minimum, to have the appearance of practicing) participatory development. Sarfaty, however, challenges my choice of internalization examples because “project-level participation is a better indicator of whether the norm of participatory development has been internalized.”

I think Sarfaty must be correct. I also think that her critique tends to support two of my points.

First, while the participatory development norm has been slowly crystallizing within the Bank, that process is neither complete nor certain to achieve full internalization. The World Bank has set up bureaucratic structures to support participation by various stakeholders, but Sarfaty points out that these structures do not guarantee that stakeholders on the ground are having a say in Bank projects that will affect their lives in a very real way. Still, if we compare the Bank’s willingness to, for example, fund projects that are “community-driven” (p. 759), shift its country directors from Washington, D.C. to the particular country (p. 760), or augment its funding of civil society partnerships (p. 760) with Bank practices prior to the mid-1980s, we see a marked difference in how the Bank practices participatory development. While participation at the project-level could certainly be more robust, greater internalization at more macro levels also suggests that the norm is in some form being crystallized.

Second, there is no generally-agreed definition for what counts as “participatory” in “participatory development” (pp. 736-39). This definitional quagmire returns us to the problems of satisfying the requirements of CIL. On the one hand, it is difficult to show that a more specific definition of participatory development—Sarfaty’s, for instance, seems to require project-level participation by affected stakeholders—has satisfied the two requirements of CIL. On the other hand, a vague definition runs the risk of being empty rhetoric that does not require the World Bank to do much of anything, let alone out of a sense of legal obligation.

Sarfaty concludes her response by asking whether one should distinguish between legal internalization and social or political internalization. My answer, both here and in the article, is an emphatic “yes,” and the current requirements of CIL provide the place for us to look to discern whether a moral norm has attained status as an international human rights law.
]]> Unpacking the Participatory Development Norm: Galit Sarfaty Comments http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214934373.shtml [Galit A. Sarfaty is a Fellow at Harvard Law School's Program on the Legal Profession, and a Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology at the University of Chicago]... Galit A. Sarfaty 2008-07-02T14:07+00:00 Galit A. Sarfaty is a Fellow at Harvard Law School's Program on the Legal Profession, and a Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology at the University of Chicago]

I would like to thank Opinio Juris and Martin Totaro for the opportunity to comment on this engaging article. The piece is an excellent contribution to existing literature on norm development and international human rights law. Particularly important is his discussion of the “crystallization” process by which a norm shifts to a human right with corresponding legal obligations. This process has been largely overlooked and is very worthy of study. Totaro is correct to observe that classification of a norm as a legal right is not binary but operates on a continuum. One goal of his article is to distinguish between moral norms and legal human rights. While I agree that such a distinction is useful on a theoretical level, it is difficult to empirically determine when a norm is being internalized out of a sense of legal obligation as opposed to moral obligation. I would welcome Totaro’s thoughts on this issue and his recommendations on how scholars can distinguish the two in practice when conducting research on norm internalization.

My comments primarily focus on the second half of the article. Here, Totaro provides a case study of how the norm of participatory development is beginning to crystallize into a legal human right. Yet in attempting to demonstrate that the World Bank is slowly internalizing the participatory development norm, Totaro relies on insufficient examples that do not adequately establish his claim. Advocates often interpret the norm of participatory development as referring to participation by stakeholders in project design and/or implementation, rather than participation in country-level dialogues. Totaro’s examples are all from the latter category—e.g., the development of Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)—so they do not fully address whether the Bank has internalized the participatory development norm in its operational practice. Furthermore, he argues that Global Monitoring Reports “represent a major step forward” in the Bank’s adoption of the norm, yet his main evidence is the level of transparency and accountability in the reports rather than participation (p. 752). His only example of participation around the reports involves the Center for Global Development, a U.S.-based policy NGO that does not represent the typical stakeholder of Bank projects.

I argue that project-level participation is a better indicator of whether the norm of participatory development has been internalized. Instead of only examining participation in country dialogues by select NGOs, one should also evaluate the level of participation by community-based stakeholders that are directly or indirectly affected by development projects. This type of participation is usually mediated by the World Bank rather than the state government. In order to provide an example of project-level participation, I suggest that Totaro discuss the important debate over prior informed consent by potentially affected communities, which was a central issue during the recent revision of the Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy (Operational Policy 4.10). Many indigenous communities and human rights advocates have argued that there is a right to prior informed consent, while others claim that it is simply an emerging norm that is not yet recognized under customary international law. The example of prior informed consent suggests that whether the Bank is internalizing this important component of participatory development is highly contested.

Totaro’s final example of “the fluid process between moral norms and legal human rights” is former Bank President James Wolfensohn’s embracing of human rights in non-legal terms (p. 762). This section appears to conflate the right to participatory development with human rights in general. It also relies solely on Wolfensohn’s statements as an indication that the Bank is not implementing the norm out of a sense of legal obligation. But one cannot make this assessment without examining how actual Bank employees are implementing the norm and whether they are accepting it as a binding legal obligation. Totaro raises a related point a bit earlier in his piece, when he rightly observes that the Bank’s governing body and the bureaucrats working inside the institution may hold competing preferences (p. 757). Yet his discussion of “the inevitable bureaucratization of rhetoric” fails to account for the internal tensions within bureaucracies over whether and how to operationalize rhetoric (pp. 758-61). Based on my own experience ethnographically studying the organizational culture of the Bank, the bureaucratization of rhetoric is certainly not inevitable. It is important to recognize the complex decision-making process within bureaucracies that may work against norm internalization, even when those norms are supported in rhetoric.

Finally, it would be useful if Totaro outlined what he sees as the conditions for norm internalization. If Totaro is correct that it operates on a continuum, then what are the different levels before full internalization is reached? Should one distinguish between legal internalization and social or political internalization? Addressing such issues would further strengthen this article and its contribution to existing literature in international law and human rights.

]]> Legal Positivism, Constructivism, and International Human Rights Law: The Case of Participatory Development http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214934090.shtml [Martin Totaro is an associate at Baker Botts in Washington, D.C. These views are his alone. Please find his SSRN author page here.]... Martin Totaro 2008-07-02T11:07+00:00 Martin Totaro is an associate at Baker Botts in Washington, D.C. These views are his alone. Please find his SSRN author page here.]

Thanks to Opinio Juris for providing an outlet for VJIL authors to express their ideas to a wide audience, and thanks to VJIL for including me as one of those authors. Galit Sarfaty has graciously agreed to respond.

In my article, I attempt to make two modest contributions regarding the relationship between international law and norm internalization. First, I offer a typology that bridges the basic tenets of legal positivism and constructivism for the purpose of providing a useful framework to separate moral norms from human rights that have attained customary international law (CIL) status. Second, by using an illustrative example—the purported right to participatory development—I aim to demonstrate how the sociopolitical process of pushing toward the legalization of a moral norm can be a vibrant, robust procedure that need not prematurely accord CIL status to a norm still in the adolescent stage of rights formation under international law.

Under a commonly accepted definition of CIL, a norm only becomes a part of CIL because of general and consistent state practice taken out of a sense of legal obligation. My article focuses in part on how an international human rights norm may be internalized such that states engage in or respect the validity of a moral norm (the usage or practice prong), but states might not do so out of a sense of legal obligation (the opinio juris prong). In other words, a state may respect the moral legitimacy of a norm while simultaneously opposing the norm as a binding legal obligation.

Several scholars, including Galit Sarfaty, have focused on the dynamic process of norm-internalization at the supra-national, national, and sub-national levels. My article enters this debate by concentrating on the fluid process of norm-internalization, paying particular attention to the crystallization period but prior to a norm attaining CIL status. My analytical framework borrows from legal positivism and constructivist theory in international relations literature. As used here, at its most basic, oversimplified level, legal positivism emphasizes “the need to distinguish, firmly and with the maximum of clarity, law as it is from law as it ought to be.” H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 HARV. L. REV. 593, 594 (1958). Constructivism, in contrast, refers to the process by which states and other major international actors internalize norms in a manner that has the potential to change these actors’ interests. For constructivists, a norm entrepreneur has the potential to change these actors’ interests. When combined as an analytical tool, “constructo-positivism” retains the key insights from both schools of thought—while CIL and non-CIL norms should not be conflated (i.e., distinguishing between the “is” and the “ought” in CIL), CIL can expand when a norm crystallizes to the point that major international actors engage the norm consistently and out of a sense of legal obligation. Put differently, the constructo-positivist as an explanatory matter separates moral norms from legal human rights but as a normative matter recognizes and even supports the process of legalization of certain norms.

The constructo-positivist framework provides a fresh look at the relationship between international human rights norms and legal human rights. These norms, grounded in a moral claim that a right should be viewed as binding in an international legal sense, do not attain this legal status simply because advocates push for such recognition. Rather, advocates of a particular right-claim must demonstrate that this right has become part of international law through accepted legalization conduits like treaties or CIL.

After laying out a typology of constructo-positivism, the article then applies it to the current debate over whether participatory development is a legal human right. I conclude that it is not—while major international actors like to United States and the World Bank may accept the legitimacy of participatory development as an aspirational norm, these actors do not engage in participatory development out of a sense of legal obligation.

While I argue that participatory development is not a part of the body of CIL, I then turn to how norm entrepreneurs are pressuring the Bank to internalize the right to participatory development.

These efforts have been partially successful. I examine the rhetoric and practice of the Bank with respect to participatory development, and find that, over the past twenty or so years, there has been what might be called “the inevitable bureaucratization of rhetoric.” In 1985, the World Bank discussed the virtue of participation in broad terms. Ten years later, we saw a shift toward more specific rhetoric about what participation really means. In 2005, we saw not only more complicated rhetoric, but also more structures built around this rhetoric. I focus on World Bank programs like Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Global Monitoring Reports that illustrate how, as the rhetoric itself developed, a wide array of norm entrepreneurs pressured and worked with the Bank to enact accountability structures to match the participatory rhetoric.

I conclude by suggesting that this process of norm-internalization indicates growing acceptance of the virtues of participatory development and its widespread practice by major international actors like the World Bank. The next shift for participatory development norm entrepreneurs will be to attempt to push for the internalization of the legal status of the norm rather than the legitimacy of the norm itself. While this norm has not yet been internalized to the point where the World Bank engages in participatory development out of a sense of legal obligation, it has been internalized as an aspirational norm.

]]> Italy to Fingerprint Roma -- But No One Else http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214891520.shtml The persecution continues:... Kevin Jon Heller 2008-07-01T05:07+00:00 The persecution continues:
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Monday the government would press ahead with plans to fingerprint ethnic Roma, including children - a move branded as discriminatory by European Union officials. Frattini - the EU's top justice official before he joined Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's cabinet - was commenting on remarks made Sunday by Interior Minister Roberto Maroni, who described critics of the plan as "hypocrites."

"I think Minister Maroni has done well to continue on the path he has outlined," Frattini said. "We are not talking of raids (against Roma communities) or anything of the sort, but a measure to identify those living in our country."

"These things are being done by many other countries in Europe without causing any scandal, and as such, they should also be done here," Frattini added.

The measure, according to Frattini, would serve to protect Roma children, who often live in shanty settlements and are not registered to attend school.

Maroni, who is from the anti-immigration Northern League wants to include the fingerprinting in a security package designed to crack down on illegal immigrants and child beggars, many of whom are ethnic Roma (colloquially known as gypsies).

The plan has drawn widespread criticism including from Catholic and United Nations officials, human rights groups and Italian opposition parties.

Last week a spokesman for the European Commission, the EU executive, said member states singling out an ethnic group for fingerprinting would be breaking EU rules.
Shameful. No, they're not talking about raids now -- they're talking about a way to make future raids more effective, by dramatically increasing the government's ability to identify and locate citizen and non-citizen Roma alike. What's next, making the Roma wear brown triangles? ]]> No Progress in the Lubanga Trial http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214796583.shtml I recently blogged about Trial Chamber I's stunning decision to stay Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's trial because of the Prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. The Court held... Kevin Jon Heller 2008-06-30T03:06+00:00 recently blogged about Trial Chamber I's stunning decision to stay Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's trial because of the Prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. The Court held a hearing on the 24th to determine whether, in light of its decision, Lubanga should be released. It has yet to reach a conclusion — but if the "compromise" the UN offered at the hearing is any indication, he might not be in custody too much longer:
In a correspondence from Nicolas Michel, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the United Nations proposed that the judges go to the Peace Palace in The Hague, therefore on "UN territory", to consult the documents.

They would not be allowed to take notes, or to record information during their consultation. Thereafter, they could indicate certain pieces of evidence for which the prosecutor would be invited to make a summary. The judges could then compare the summary with the original evidence and decide to reveal these summaries to the defence.

During the hearing of 24 June, Catherine Mabille, the lawyer for Lubanga, has from the start specified that "the defence will not accept summaries, which cannot be evidence".

"If you accept", she declared, that means that the prosecutor signs agreements with the United Nations, and that the UN will dictate to the judges, to justice, what it can hear, what can be said or not."
The judges seem to agree with Mabille: Justice Adrian Fulford told the Prosecutor that the court was "unlikely to approve a system that depends on its ability to memorize large quantities of information which it is unable to retain and study, and compare it with other evidence in the case so as to assess its relevance." His position is sound: the last thing the Court needs is a trial that resembles a Guantanamo military commission. This trial will create the blueprint for future trials; it is thus imperative for the Court to do everything in its power to protect the defendant's rights — even if that ultimately means letting Lubanga walk.]]> An Important Maori Land Settlement -- But Where's the Treaty Itself? http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1214543775.shtml The BBC reports that the New Zealand government and seven Maori tribes have entered into an historic agreement concerning Maori ownership of... Kevin Jon Heller 2008-06-27T06:06+00:00 The BBC reports that the New Zealand government and seven Maori tribes have entered into an historic agreement concerning Maori ownership of a number of forests in the North Island, where I live:
The NZ$420m ($319m) agreement transfers ownership of nine forests - covering 435,000 acres (176,000 hectares) of land - in the central North Island.

Hundreds of Maori, some in traditional dress, thronged parliament to witness the signing of the accord.

"It's a historic journey we are on," Prime Minister Helen Clark said.

"We came into politics to address injustice and seek reconciliation. Thank you for walking that road with us on this historic day," she added, according to AP news agency.

The settlement - the largest single deal between the government and Maori tribes - seeks to address grievances dating back to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

The treaty guaranteed the indigenous Maori people use of their land and resources in return for ceding sovereignty to the British crown. But land seizures and ownership breaches followed.

The forests signed over are mainly large commercial pine plantations, generating about NZ$13m a year in rents.

The settlement also hands over rents that have accumulated on the land since 1989.

Between them, the seven tribes or iwi include more than 100,000 members. They will manage the land collectively, setting up a holding company structure and forestry management structure.
The agreement, known as the "Treelords" deal — echoing the very controversial 1992 Sealords deal, which ultimately led the New Zealand Parliament to extinguish all Maori claims to commercial fishing rights — is indeed historic. I would take issue, though, with the article's claim that the Treaty of Waitangi "guaranteed the indigenous Maori people use of their land and resources in return for ceding sovereignty to the British crown." That interpretation is consistent with the English version of the Treaty — but not with the Maori version. (The two versions were drafted separately, and the English version is not a translation of the Maori, even though the Maori version was drafted first.)

Here is Article 1 of the Treaty in English:
The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.
And here is Article 1 in Maori:
Ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
I have bolded the operative terms. The problem is that kawanatanga does not mean "sovereignty"; it means "governance" — a much weaker term. Indeed, it is clear that the Maori did not intend to cede anything resembling sovereignty to the Queen, given that the Maori version of the Treaty does not use the Maori word for "sovereignty," kingitanga, or even the Maori word for "independence," rangatiritanga.

Just as important, the British had to have known that the Maori did not intend to cede sovereignty to the Queen. In 1835, the British and the Maori had signed the Declaration of Independence, in which the British guaranteed that the Maori chiefs would maintain sovereignty over their land. The Declaration made use of all three of the words that are at the heart of the dispute over the Treaty, with the British translating rangatiritanga as "independence," kingitanga as "sovereign power and authority," and kawanatanga as "functions of government." How then could the British have honestly believed a mere five years later — with many of the same British officials present at the signing of both documents — that Article 1's use of the term kawanatanga, as opposed to kingitanga, meant that the Maori were giving up their sovereignty?

Regardless, the question is now moot — New Zealand courts have long since given up trying to determine the "true" meaning of the Treaty. Now they — and the Waitangi Tribunal, which makes recommendations to the government concerning Maori grievances — simply apply the so-called "Treaty Principles":
The principle of government or the kawanatanga principle

Article 1 gives expression to the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern in accordance with constitutional process. This sovereignty is qualified by the promise to accord the Māori interests specified in article 2 an appropriate priority. This principle describes the balance between articles 1 and 2: the exchange of sovereignty by the Māori people for the protection of the Crown. It was emphasised in the context of this principle that ‘the Government has the right to govern and make laws’.

The principle of self-management (the rangatiratanga principle)

Article 2 guarantees to Māori hapū (tribes) the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain. The preservation of a resource base, restoration of tribal self-management, and the active protection of taonga, both material and cultural, are necessary elements of the Crown’s policy of recognising rangatiratanga. The Government also recognised the Court of Appeal’s description of active protection, but identified the key concept of this principle as a right for iwi to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own.

The principle of equality

Article 3 constitutes a guarantee of legal equality between Māori and other citizens of New Zealand. This means that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, the common law system is selected by the Treaty as the basis for that equality, although human rights accepted under international law are also incorporated. Article 3 has an important social significance in the implicit assurance that social rights would be enjoyed equally by Māori with all New Zealand citizens of whatever origin. Special measures to attain that equal enjoyment of social benefits are allowed by international law.

The principle of reasonable cooperation

The Treaty is regarded by the Crown as establishing a fair basis for two peoples in one country. Duality and unity are both significant. Duality implies distinctive cultural development while unity implies common purpose and community. The relationship between community and distinctive development is governed by the requirement of cooperation, which is an obligation placed on both parties by the Treaty. Reasonable cooperation can only take place if there consultation on major issues of common concern and if good faith, balance, and common sense are shown on all sides. The outcome of reasonable cooperation will be partnership.

The principle of redress

The Crown accepts a responsibility to provide a process for the resolution of grievances arising from the Treaty. This process may involve courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or direct negotiation. The provision of redress, where entitlement is established, must take account of its practical impact and of the need to avoid the creation of fresh injustice. If the Crown demonstrates commitment to this process of redress, it will expect reconciliation to result.
The Treaty Principles are important, and they do occasionally protect Maori interests. But their importance cannot obscure the fact that the Treaty itself still has no formal legal status in New Zealand, making Maori interests subject to the whims of Parliament. And that's no accident: taking the Treaty seriously would mean taking the Maori version of the Treaty seriously — and taking the Maori version seriously would mean that deals like Treelord would be the very tiny tip of a very large iceberg.]]>