Procedures that engage the institutional mechanisms of states at the domestic level
are supplemented by procedures involving international institutions. The relation-
ship between these two procedural matrices is regulated by the principle of non-
interference in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states, a corol-
lary to the doctrine of state sovereignty, which is reflected in article 2(7) of the United
Nations Charter. This principle stems from a policy of favoring decision making at
more local levels where possible, including decision making on the implementation
of international human rights standards, and it reflects the realities of a world system
that is still largely state-centered.

The principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, however, is not absolute,
nor does it constitute the formidable barrier to international concern into the domes-
tic realm that existed in earlier periods in the development of international law. ¹ Today,
the principle only conditionally shields states from international scrutiny or inter-
vention in human rights matters arising within their respective spheres of authority.
International procedures exist to scrutinize state behavior with regard to human rights,
and the intrusiveness of such procedures into the domestic realm is only partly a
function of state consent to the procedures. Offending states--regardless of their
consent--may find themselves subject to a level of international scrutiny depending
upon the gravity of noncompliance with applicable norms or the degree to which
violations of human rights linger unchecked by domestic institutions and decision
makers. ²

As noted throughout this book, indigenous peoples in particular have been vic-
tims of widespread patterns of officially sanctioned oppressive action or neglect,
which has led the international community at large to establish indigenous peoples
as special subjects of concern. Indigenous peoples remain vulnerable even in states
that have taken concrete steps toward compliance with contemporary international
standards concerning their rights. In the United States, for example, despite a resolu-
tion of Congress acknowledging and apologizing for historical wrongs against Na-
tive Hawaiians, executive officials have attempted to minimize federal responsibil-

-151-