The semantic field of genocide, cultural genocide, and ethnocide overlaps between Indigenous rights discourse and genocide studies. Since the 1970s, such language has been used to express grievances that have stimulated the construction of Indigenous rights in international law. These particular words signify general concerns with the integrity of Indigenous peoples, thereby undergirding a larger framework of normative beliefs, ethical arguments, and legal claims, especially the right to

more »

... ermination. Going back to the post-World War II era, this article traces the normative and institutional processes through which this overlapping discourse has emerged. Culminating with the adoption of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this process of international lawmaking has critically challenged the conventional interpretation of genocide, especially as the latter has been categorically distinguished from cultural genocide or ethnocide. Abstract: The semantic field of genocide, cultural genocide, and ethnocide overlaps between Indigenous rights discourse and genocide studies. Since the 1970s, such language has been used to express grievances that have stimulated the construction of Indigenous rights in international law. These particular words signify general concerns with the integrity of Indigenous peoples, thereby undergirding a larger framework of normative beliefs, ethical arguments, and legal claims, especially the right to self-determination. Going back to the post-World War II era, this article traces the normative and institutional processes through which this overlapping discourse has emerged. Culminating with the adoption of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this process of international lawmaking has critically challenged the conventional interpretation of genocide, especially as the latter has been categorically distinguished from cultural genocide or ethnocide.