The author offers an international law perspective on a specific issue of self-determination of indigenous peoples. The article begins with the definition of indigenous peoples, then proceeds to self-determination in general. The last section examines the forms of indigenous selfdetermination and its meaning for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination which allows them for control over their destiny, their livelihoods, their culture and customs. It may be realized, most of all, in the form of autonomy or self-governance. As such, self-determination allows indigenous peoples to participate in decision making in matters that affect their rights.

This paper concentrates on a particular example of cooperation between European cities and indigenous peoples of the Amazon river basin, namely that of Climate Alliance. The New Urban Agenda adopted at the UN Habitat III conference in October 2016 emphasizes that cities and other human settlements should meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities for current and future sustainable and economic inclusive development. Cities should also take measures to address climate change and protect and manage their ecosystems, water resources, the environment and biodiversity. Indigenous peoples, just like cities play a crucial role in the fight against climate change. 80 % of the territories with high biodiversity level are indigenous lands. Their indigenous ecological knowledge may serve as a valuable tool in initiatives aimed at fighting climate change. The aim of the paper is to show whether there are any benefits of such cooperation and what is its significance in the fight against climate change. The main research question is: what are the forms of cooperation between European cities and Amazonian indigenous peoples in the framework of Climate Alliance? In which way can European cities support indigenous peoples in their fight for their rights and consequently for the nature’s preservation? The hypothesis is that European cities may learn from indigenous peoples of the Amazon how to combat climate change.

The paper concentrates on the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples on the basis of the Nisga’a Nation. The author analyzes the most important provisions of the Nisga’a Final Agreement, in particular those envisaging self-determination of the Nisga’a Nation. Then the author briefly examines the Nisga’a Constitution which may be regarded as a means to implement the Nisga’a Final Agreement. It shows how the Nisga’a selfgovernance model fits into the provisions on self-determination of indigenous peoples. The thesis of this paper is that the Nisga’a self-governance is consonant with international legal standards expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nisga’a selfgovernment model is much more than just cultural autonomy: it actually amounts to political autonomy. This subject is worth exploring because it may serve as a pattern to be followed with reference to other indigenous peoples, not only in Canada.

The author presents selected ventures in the area of climate change mitigation and adaptation that negatively affect indigenous peoples. Against this factual background, she analyzes relevant international legal regulations. Such an analysis enables the answer to the main research question: can climate change adaptation and mitigation actions be the justification for disrespecting the rights of indigenous peoples? The research method adopted is legal- -institutional analysis which includes an examination of the content of legal and other documents. Combined with critical analysis of literature and media reports this analysis allows representation of the reality – violations of the rights of indigenous peoples as a part of efforts to counteract climate change. Recommendations and main findings include: climate change adaptation and mitigation measures may not justify violations of the rights of indigenous peoples; such measures have to be developed in collaboration with indigenous communities; indigenous peoples’ rights may not be perceived as a factor hindering the State’s economic development or an obstacle to environmental protection; indigenous knowledge should be included in the strategies to combat climate change. Indigenous peoples should be regularly consulted by policy makers so that the their traditional knowledge is incorporated in decisions regarding these matters.

Human Remains in Asian Museums and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The work concerns the restitution of museum remains as a special cultural asset found in archaeological museums. The research problem concerns reverence towards human remains constituting museum exhibits on the example of Singapore museums. This type of museum inventory has become the subject of intensified restitution activities on the part of tribal minorities, indigenous peoples, who claim the right to them based on the right to worship after their deceased ancestors, the right to protect cultural, religious, and traditional heritage. Such law is based particularly on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The research objective focuses, first of all, on the legal grounds resulting from the Declaration, and secondly, on the analysis of the inventory of selected Singaporean museums, which contain exhibits that are human remains in their collections. The main research hypothesis focuses on the statement that Singapore, as one of the few Asian countries, maintains a special regime of pietism towards the deceased, which is manifested in the way of treating and storing human remains as museum exhibits. It may be due to the country’s cultural conditions on the one hand, and religious and legal conditions on the other. That, in turn, translates into the approach of museums to restitution claims, which are increasingly being put forward by representatives of indigenous peoples in connection with the return of the remains of their deceased ancestors. These claims find their legal basis in acts of international law and collective human rights. Therefore, the work answers the questions whether museums in Singapore duly respect international law in protecting human remains and the rights of indigenous peoples, and how this translates into reverence for this type of exhibits in museum practices in connection with ICOM regulations.