【College of Social Sciences】

On December 12, 2025, the College of Social Sciences at NCCU welcomed Professor Andrew J. Nathan from Columbia University’s Department of Political Science to deliver a lecture titled “Indigenous Peoples in International Human Rights Law and Politics,” a part of the CSS+ PLUS lecture series cohosted by Ethnology-Outstanding 100 Project. Prof. Nathan chairs the steering committee of the Center for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia and serves as a board member of Human Rights in China (HRIC), and sits on the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch (HRW) Asia. This lecture was moderated by Prof. Wan-Ying Yang, Dean of the College of Social Sciences. Many faculty members of the College of Social Sciences were also present, including Associate Dean, Prof. Philip Hsiaopong Liu and Chair of the Department of Ethnology, Prof. Da-Wei Kuan. In her introduction, Dean Yang expressed that the College is greatly honored to appoint Prof. Nathan as an Adjunct Chair Professor starting from the 2026–27 academic year.

According to Prof. Nathan, globally, Indigenous Peoples number between 300 and 500 million, comprising over 5,000 groups across more than 90 countries. Despite vast cultural and linguistic differences, these groups share strikingly similar experiences of structural harm associated with modern state formation, colonization, and globalization—land dispossession, ecological destruction, economic exploitation, cultural suppression, forced assimilation, and systemic discrimination. He traced the rise of a common global indigenous identity to the 1970s, when grassroots movements such as the American Indian Movement, the Sámi Council, and Inuit organizations began mobilizing around civil rights. A key milestone occurred in 1977, when the United Nations invited Indigenous representatives to Geneva for direct participation. This momentum culminated in the 1986 Martínez Cobo Study, which, rather than offering a strict legal definition, advanced an “understanding” of indigeneity based on self-identification, historical continuity, and non-dominant societal status; the Study laid the conceptual groundwork for Indigenous Peoples in international laws.

Prof. Nathan explained how international institutions and legal frameworks have moved from earlier assimilationist approaches to ones that affirm cultural diversity and collective rights. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee’s 1994 General Comment on The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 27 clarified that individual cultural rights are inseparable from the group’s ability to maintain its language, traditions, and relationship to land. These evolving principles were later enshrined in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which outlines key rights including those to land, natural resources, cultural preservation, free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), and limited forms of self-determination. Although UNDRIP is non-binding, Prof. Nathan emphasized its significant impact—prompting constitutional reforms, state apologies and redress, land rights and restitution, environmental governance, and shifts in corporate responsibility across various countries. They reshape global expectations, empower marginalized voices, and create new possibilities for justice and legitimacy.

In response to global trends, following Taiwan’s official establishment of the Council of Indigenous Peoples in 1996, Taiwan’s indigenous policies have incorporated many measures—including reserved legislative seats, language and cultural preservation, and engagement with international human rights mechanisms. However, challenges such as poverty, language loss, and cultural commodification (museumification) persist. Taiwan’s indigenous peoples continue to navigate complex relationships with their state structures, oscillating between recognition and assimilation.

During the Q&A session, participants questioned the enforceability of international norms. Professor Nathan acknowledged the UN’s limited coercive power, highlighting treaty bodies, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), and moral accountability as key mechanisms. He emphasized that, even in the absence of binding legal force, international norms can shape state behavior and historical judgment. Comparing Taiwan with mainland China’s “national minority” framework, he concluded that Indigenous Peoples’ rights illustrate how contemporary international law has been significantly shaped by sustained advocacy from the Global South and marginalized communities, rather than by Western states alone.