Tony Sutorius’ Post

ILSA UNN Weekly Digest Do you know that.. “ ... simply signing a treaty does not usually make a State a party. By signing a treaty, the State only indicates it's intention to take steps to express it's consent to be bound by the treaty at a later date. ” Under the Vienna Convention of the Laws of Treaties, the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when: (a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect; (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or (c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation. #ILSA_UNN #ILSA_UNN_WEEKLY_DIGEST #ILSA_UNN_RESEARCH_TEAM #InternationalLaw

The "certainity" of Treaty principles This article from the Spinoff argues that there is certainty and stability in the interpretation of the Treaty Principles: “The status quo provides a higher degree of certainty about what the Treaty principles are and how they operate in New Zealand law.” The author, Carwyn Jones, argues that the new Treaty Principles bill brings greater uncertainty. For the various reasons behind the Treaty Principls Bill, it looks as if removing uncertainty is not convincing. Have a look at the Public Sector Journal, published later this month, for a more detailed analysis of the Treaty principles by this author. https://lnkd.in/gtX4Nuyy #treatyofwaitangi #treatyprinciples #publicsector

The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill - the quality of Ministry of Justice advice. Last night a Newshub story featured material from the Ministry of Justice released by the Waitangi Tribunal that criticised the Treaty Principles Bill's interpretation of the Treaty/Tiriti (see attached clip). I have no particular axe to grind on this issue. I just want an informed public discussion about the meaning of the Treaty as I believe it is critical to our future to have such a discussion. With this in mind, earlier in the year I requested under the Official Information Act all substantive analysis by the Ministry of Justice in the past 10 years on the meaning of the Treaty and the Treaty principles. The reply I received was that NO substantive analysis had been undertaken. Given this answer, I really do question the Ministry's capacity to say anything meaningful on the Treaty to Ministers. This is very disappointing as there is so much material that could have usefully been prepared for Ministers to help facilitate a constructive public discussion about the various interpretations of the Treaty. Disclosure: I have previously been a Ministry of Justice employee.

Jack Tame. Interesting discussion yesterday where we see the weakness & fragility of David Seymour & ACT for their Treaty Principles Bill. Tame finds the core issue is all about translation... obviously a misunderstanding?!? Have been watching the "debate" that Seymour had with an Iwi CEO & a couple of idiots recently. That didn't help at all! This is what we need to see more of... educated & mature argument & discussion with facts! >> https://lnkd.in/gXxh7MHW

The Treaty Principles Bill 2024 (TPB) passed it's first reading in the House of Parliament on Thursday 14th November 2024. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 is New Zealand's founding document. Written in both English and Maori, there is still disagreement about the exact meaning of the Treaty amongst Maori. Essentially the Treaty states that Maori from that date in 1840 ceded sovereignty to the British Crown in return for the protection of their land and possessions and endowment of all the rights and responsibilities of British subjects. The official wording of the Treaty of Waitangi can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gM4vGqEB. For those who want to read more on the Treaty Principles Bill 2024, it can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gcHpZTnV. Despite a law passed in 1975 attempting to define Treaty 'Principles' for the first time in legislation. However since then, the official interpretation of these Principles has evolved and changed through case law. Because these principles are now written into many important laws in the country, that has led to the current governments' legislative push to define and clarify these principles. The other alternative supported by NZ First and National is that references to The Treaty of Waitangi Principles be removed from all laws completely.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION: CTA # 46 (not started) https://lnkd.in/gQEag4xZ Why “Not Started”? The Church Parties to the Settlement Agreement made commitments to a Covenant of Reconciliation in 2015 and 2016; the federal government did as well in their last official update on Sept, 5, 2019. There has been no actions or news since then and no timeline identified for development of a Covenant of Reconciliation for signature. Nothing specific in federal government’s official response other than general statements in support of i. Reconciliation and ii. Repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius (see also C2A # 47); (iii) Bill C-15 “An Act to harmonize laws with UNDRIP” receives Royal Assent on June 21, 20121 and becomes law. (See C2A # 43) and iv. Treaty relationship that are addressed through “Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples” but no indication of how or any discussion of integration with the National Action Plan. The federal response does not address v and vi at all.

📊 The case for nuance in NZ's Treaty debate The Treaty Principles debate raises a fundamental question: how should a modern democracy handle the evolution of its foundational documents? I explore this challenge in my column in today's Australian. #NewZealand #PublicPolicy #Governance #Treaty

I weighed in in support of ACT's treaty principles bill. See below. I believe the debate around this bill is fundamentally important if New Zealand is to remain a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation. Check out the column if interested. What is surprising (or maybe not) is that mainstream outlets like Newsroom have given enormous amounts to column space to people like Geoffrey Palmer or Anne Salmond who think that this bill and the debate around it is the end of democracy. Yet, no such courtesy has been extended to those who support the bill. I guess we are not even pretending to be balanced anymore. (I do note that Stuff did write a fairly balanced explainer on the issues at stake. But this is not the same as providing a platform to those who may support the bill. Those opposed to it seem to getting all the airtime. I may be wrong.) To me it seems self-evident that Parliament is sovereign and it is the questioning of this sovereignty that represents a threat to democracy, not a debate around the treaty principles. I want to thank (without implicating them in any way) my colleagues Robert MacCulloch, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, Elizabeth Rata and Anthony Poole for feedback on earlier drafts of the article. The views expressed and any mistakes are mine alone. https://lnkd.in/gx9RJKg7

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION: CTA # 46 (not started) https://lnkd.in/gGU2zBb5 Why “Not Started”? The Church Parties to the Settlement Agreement made commitments to a Covenant of Reconciliation in 2015 and 2016; the federal government did as well in their last official update on Sept, 5, 2019. There has been no actions or news since then and no timeline identified for development of a Covenant of Reconciliation for signature. Nothing specific in federal government’s official response other than general statements in support of i. Reconciliation and ii. Repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius (see also C2A # 47); (iii) Bill C-15 “An Act to harmonize laws with UNDRIP” receives Royal Assent on June 21, 20121 and becomes law. (See C2A # 43) and iv. Treaty relationship that are addressed through “Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples” but no indication of how or any discussion of integration with the National Action Plan. The federal response does not address v and vi at all.

Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) enshrines a peremptory right of intervention for States parties to a multilateral treaty in cases concerning the interpretation of that treaty. The provision is a cornerstone of the Court's adjudicatory process, ensuring that all interested parties have an opportunity to contribute to the determination of treaty meaning. This simply means that all the 153 UN Genocide Convention member states are qualified and competent to intervene in the case before the court . The right conferred by Article 63 of the court statute is absolute . It is not subject to the Court's discretion, nor is it contingent upon any factors beyond the State's status as a party to the treaty under consideration. Once this criterion is met, the State's right to intervene becomes vested. The exercise of the right to intervene under Article 63 has several implications for the Court's proceedings. Primarily, it introduces additional parties to the case, thereby expanding the range of legal arguments and evidence presented. This can enrich the Court's deliberations and contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the treaty at issue. Conversely, it may also complicate the proceedings and potentially prolong the decision-making process. Moreover, the intervention of a State party can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. The Court is obliged to consider the submissions of all parties, including interveners, when reaching its decision. Consequently, an intervener's arguments may persuade the Court to adopt a different interpretation of the treaty than it would have otherwise reached. #Turkey #israel #genocide