International Human Rights Violations and Tribal Jurisdiction: The Case for Restoring Sovereignty to Protect Native Women

The federal government’s refusal to authorize tribal nations to exercise full criminal jurisdiction over all persons who commit acts of violence against Native women in Indian Country constitutes a violation of multiple binding international legal obligations. These violations can be challenged before the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which oversees the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). While the United States has signed but not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), that treaty still provides persuasive standards and frameworks used by Indigenous advocates worldwide.

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, the United States is obligated to ensure effective remedies (art. 2(3)) and equal protection under the law (art. 26). The jurisdictional barriers that prevent tribal governments from prosecuting non-Indians—despite the disproportionate violence suffered by Native women—undermine both guarantees. Additionally, Article 27 of the ICCPR affirms that ethnic and linguistic minorities have the right to enjoy their culture in community, which includes self-governance and administering justice in accordance with their traditions. By obstructing tribal criminal jurisdiction, the federal government infringes upon Indigenous cultural and political rights.

Similarly, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, prohibits racial discrimination in all its forms. Article 5(b) obligates states to ensure personal security and protection from violence, and Article 6 requires states to provide effective legal remedies for victims of discrimination. The CERD accepts reports not only from states but also from non-governmental organizations, including tribal nations and Indigenous advocates, through shadow reporting. Indigenous groups can and have used this process to spotlight systemic racial disparities and gaps in legal protections. The U.S. government’s failure to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators, or to allow tribal governments to do so, is a violation of these obligations and results in unequal access to justice based on race.

Although the United States has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13, it offers a valuable international benchmark. Article 2 of CEDAW requires effective legal protections through competent tribunals and the elimination of all forms of legal discrimination. Indigenous women in other countries have used CEDAW to challenge state inaction on violence in their communities. For U.S.-based advocates, CEDAW still serves as a useful advocacy tool for highlighting international consensus and for engaging with policymakers and the public.

In sum, the federal government’s refusal to authorize full tribal jurisdiction over crimes of violence against Native women violates the United States’ obligations under the ICCPR and ICERD. While CEDAW is not legally binding on the U.S., it provides a persuasive framework for advocacy. Together, these instruments offer Indigenous advocates a multi-layered international platform to push for legal reform, assert sovereignty, and demand justice.

Reference:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.