## Facts

- Nineteen Maori individuals from seven iwi alleged that New Zealand’s fisheries laws and a comprehensive fisheries settlement impaired Maori fishing practices tied to culture and religion.
- Maori fishing interests were historically recognized in the Treaty of Waitangi (1840), including control of tribal fisheries.
- New Zealand introduced a commercial quota management system and later negotiated a nationwide fisheries settlement after domestic litigation and interim injunctions.
- The settlement was implemented through legislation and aimed to address fisheries depletion while providing Maori commercial participation and protecting non-commercial customary fishing through regulatory mechanisms.
- The authors contended the settlement restricted traditional fishing practices and reduced the ability to challenge future fisheries measures in court.
- Procedurally, claims under ICCPR articles 16, 18, and 26 were dismissed as unsubstantiated; the Committee addressed the merits of claims under article 27 (in conjunction with article 1) and article 14(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the fisheries settlement and implementing framework unlawfully interfered with the authors’ right, as members of a minority, to enjoy Maori culture through traditional fishing under ICCPR article 27, interpreted in light of article 1.
2. Whether legislative limits associated with the settlement denied the authors access to a court or a fair hearing under ICCPR article 14(1).

## Decision

- The Committee found no violation of ICCPR article 27 (considered with article 1).
- The Committee found no violation of ICCPR article 14(1).
- The Committee concluded that the facts did not disclose a breach of any admissible Covenant provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Under ICCPR article 27, “culture” may include an indigenous community’s way of life associated with the use of natural resources; traditional economic activities such as fishing can be protected where culturally significant.
- Article 27 is infringed when State measures effectively deny minority members the ability to enjoy their culture in community with their group; regulation that affects cultural practices is not automatically a denial.
- Conservation and resource-management objectives may justify restrictions, provided they do not have the effect of denying culturally significant practices.
- Participation, consultation, and the negotiated character of measures affecting indigenous resource use are relevant in assessing compatibility with article 27.
- ICCPR article 1 (self-determination) is a collective right and is not typically directly justiciable through the Optional Protocol, but it may inform interpretation of individual rights such as article 27.
- Under ICCPR article 14(1), limitations on particular remedies do not violate fair-hearing rights where individuals retain meaningful access to judicial or tribunal processes and are not deprived of impartial adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Committee held that New Zealand’s negotiated fisheries settlement, designed to address over-exploitation while recognizing Maori fishing interests and preserving customary non-commercial fishing channels, did not deny Maori cultural fishing protected by article 27 and did not deprive the authors of fair access to adjudicative processes under article 14(1).


Apirana Mahuika (Commc’n No. 547/1993) v. N.Z., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (Hum. Rts. Comm. 2000)