The debate on indigenous rights has revealed some serious difficulties for current international law, posed mainly by different understandings of important concepts. This book explores the extent to which indigenous claims, as recorded in the United Nations forums, can be accommodated by international law. By doing so, it also highlights how the indigenous debate has stretched the contours and ultimately evolved international human rights standards. The book first reflects on the international law responses to the theoretical arguments on cultural membership. After a comprehensive analysis of the existing instruments on indigenous rights, the discussion turns to self-determination. Different views are assessed and a fresh perspective on the right to self-determination is outlined. Ultimately, the author refuses to shy away from difficult questions and challenging issues and offers a comprehensive discussion of indigenous rights and their contribution to international law.

Th e article argues that Maori political participation in New Zealand constitutes a positive example of how the current international standards on indigenous political participation can be implemented at the national level. Notwithstanding the weaknesses of the system and the challenges laying ahead, the combination of the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system, dedicated Maori seats and the establishment of the Maori Party have ensured a Maori voice in Parliament and have broadened the possibilities of eff ective indigenous participation in the political life of the state. Such state practice that implements the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples fi rmly confi rms the position of the Declaration within current international law.

There has been very little research on the rights of numerically small peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation. Even though legislation has recently passed that improves their legal rights and notwithstanding the respect for indigenous cultures, the article reveals a considerable gap between general relevant standards of international law and the real situation of these peoples. Ultimate lack of political will and focus on national economic development maintain discriminatory patterns, discourage any real participation of these communities in decisions that affect them, prolong the violations against their land rights and ultimately endanger their survival.

Following the rise of migrant inflows in Europe since 2015, more than 210,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in Europe. This article argues that serious games can in principle fill the gap of human rights education that these children face and ultimately help them develop, but important issues and challenges need to be considered. The article follows the design and development of “The Rights Hero”, a prototype serious game for migrant children to help them learn and practise their rights, encouraging them to take transformative action that will lead them to integration. The game focuses on the “Rights Hero”, whose gender and race are unidentifiable and who is trying to build up two superpowers, “Resilience” and “Empowerment”, through responding appropriately to various challenges. These challenges are all too familiar to migrant children. Designed by an interdisciplinary team of human rights and game design experts, and in collaboration with the ngo Network for Children’s Rights, work on the prototype raised important discussions regarding the use of games for human rights education, the need for children to know their rights, and their understanding of integration. The article reflects on the extent to which serious games can be developed as a useful informal educational tool for the human rights education of displaced children.

The 'integration' of members of minorities into the European societies where they live seems to have become a buzzword. This paper disagrees with the blanket endorsement of integration as a positive policy, as currently shared by European states. It aims to demonstrate that contrary to the prevailing belief by states and international human rights bodies that 'integration' contributes to the realisation of human rights of minorities and to social cohesion, integration of members of minority communities has been amply used to dilute the protection they enjoy under international human rights law. In order to prove this argument, the article first discusses how international bodies and academic literature present integration as a positive element of minority rights. The article then identifies five specific ways in which integration rhetoric and policies limit minority rights: states have used the integration concept in international fora to justify assimilationist policies; they have interpreted it as setting obligations only to migrants rather than the state; and have used it as an obstacle to the naturalisation of migrants. Integration has been used to deny members of minorities positive protection; and as a vehicle to promote stereotypes of human rights as European only values. The article concludes that the uses of integration at the international level harms minority protection; hence, international policies regarding minority rights should be placed back within the context of existing standards of international law, rather than the loose and hazy context of integration.