Two Perspectives on Indigenous Rights in Russia at the 19th Session of EMRIP

Andrei Danilov

The 19th session of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), held in Geneva, was not merely a platform for discussing Indigenous rights. It revealed the existence of two fundamentally different approaches to understanding what the protection of these rights means in contemporary Russia.

On one side stood representatives of the state and organizations integrated into the official system of interaction with government bodies. On the other stood independent Indigenous representatives from Russia, many of whom today continue their work already outside the country.

At first glance, both sides spoke about similar topics: languages, culture, artificial intelligence, Indigenous participation in UN work, and sustainable development. Yet behind the same words lay completely different understandings of Indigenous rights themselves.

The State Approach: Rights Through Institutions

The Russian delegation's presentations were built around state mechanisms. The focus was on support programs, socio-economic development, cultural and linguistic preservation, the application of artificial intelligence, international cooperation, and the impact of sanctions on access to modern technologies.

Such a picture presented the state as the primary guarantor of Indigenous rights.

A separate theme was representation. The need to rely on recognized "umbrella" organizations and to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" representatives was repeatedly emphasized.

In effect, the state model proceeds from the assumption that existing institutions should determine who represents the interests of Indigenous peoples on the international stage.

The Independent Approach: Rights Through People and Community

Independent representatives spoke about something entirely different.

At the center of their interventions were not institutions, but people themselves.

They spoke about the safety of activists, the persecution of independent representatives, the shrinking space for civic participation, the severing of ties with traditional lands, the situation of Indigenous peoples in conflict zones, refugee rights, and the need for genuine Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of communities in territorial development.

Virtually all speeches were united by one thought: the existence of state programs does not necessarily mean that a person can actually exercise their rights.

A special place was given to the theme of participation in the work of the United Nations.

Independent representatives emphasized that the right to speak on behalf of one's people should be determined by the people themselves, not by the state. State registration of an organization is not proof of its genuine mandate, just as the absence of registration does not automatically make a representative illegitimate.

In essence, the discussion revolved around two different models of representation.

The first proceeds from the assumption that legitimacy is confirmed by the state.

The second — that the sole source of such a mandate is the community itself.

One Language – Two Different Understandings of Its Preservation

The difference became particularly evident during the discussion of linguistic rights.

State representatives spoke about support programs, digital technologies, and the use of artificial intelligence for language preservation.

Independent representative Vyacheslav Krechetov proposed looking at the problem much more broadly.

He drew attention not only to the need for real measures to preserve languages but also raised the issue of the use of traditional toponyms in the names of industrial companies.

This is a fundamentally different view of linguistic rights.

A name originating from an Indigenous language is part of cultural heritage and historical memory. When an industrial company uses such a toponym as a brand without the participation of the people themselves, the language becomes a commercial resource.

Thus, the discussion went far beyond school curricula and dictionaries. The question was raised about the right of Indigenous peoples to control the use of their own cultural heritage.

Artificial Intelligence: Development or Human Rights?

Another difference emerged in the discussion of artificial intelligence.

The state delegation focused primarily on access to technologies and the consequences of international restrictions for the development of digital projects.

Independent representatives spoke first and foremost about human rights.

For them, the main question was not only whether artificial intelligence could be used to preserve languages, but also who controls Indigenous data, how traditional knowledge is protected, and whether modern technologies can be used for surveillance, pressure, or the appropriation of cultural heritage.

Thus, one side discussed technologies, while the other discussed people's rights in the use of those technologies.

Refugees as a New Theme on the International Agenda

For the first time, the issue of Indigenous peoples forced to seek refuge outside their country occupied such a prominent place.

Independent representatives showed that for an Indigenous person, forced departure means not only the loss of home.

It means the loss of daily connection with traditional territory, community, language, and cultural environment.

Even after receiving international protection, a person may find themselves unable to fully participate in the life of their people.

This problem was virtually absent from the state side's presentations but became one of the most important themes for independent representatives.

Two Understandings of Rights

After several days of EMRIP work, it became clear that the discussion was not merely about different assessments of the situation.

At the UN platform, two different concepts collided.

The first views Indigenous rights primarily through state institutions, programs, and officially recognized organizations.

The second proceeds from the assumption that rights exist only when Indigenous peoples themselves can freely exercise them — choose their representatives, protect their lands, preserve their language, manage their cultural heritage, and turn to international mechanisms without fear of persecution.

This, in my view, was the main content of the discussions at the 19th session of EMRIP.

The question is no longer whether support programs exist or whether relevant documents have been adopted.

The main question is much simpler and at the same time more complex: can Indigenous peoples themselves freely realize their rights regardless of the political conjuncture?

As long as the answer to this question remains ambiguous, international mechanisms will have not only to assess state reports but also to continue listening carefully to the independent voices of Indigenous peoples themselves.

IR