The Institution Building Package Secret States Don't Want Indigenous Peoples to Find

How understanding HRC resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 can destroy every argument against a new Indigenous status at the Council (and turn you into the most dangerous negotiator in the room)

Good evening!

This morning the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples discussed item 9, enhanced participation of Indigenous Peoples.

One consistent argument by the heavy hitters States brought up when Indigenous Peoples are not in Geneva, but refrained from bringing up during this session is the “IB package”.

I've been hearing the same arguments for over a year now.

Throughout 2024 at Human Rights Council sessions. During the September 2025 negotiations. And at the first intersessional meeting in July.

State after State citing the same document to block Indigenous observer status.

Resolution 5/1. The "Institution Building Package."

"The Institution Building Package doesn't allow new status categories," they claim. "Creating Indigenous observer status would violate the Council's foundational rules."

So, by the time I was asked to speak at the second intersessional meeting in October, I'd heard this argument so many times I could recite it in my sleep.

I knew exactly what I wanted to address.

Those State delegates were wrong. Dead wrong.

Here's why this matters, and how understanding one UN resolution can unlock a new era of Indigenous diplomacy.

What Is the Institution Building Package?

Resolution 5/1 isn't just bureaucratic paperwork. It's the foundational blueprint for how the UN Human Rights Council operates.

Passed in 2007, this resolution created the rules that govern everything from who can speak to how agenda items get discussed. Most diplomats treat it like a dusty manual. Smart Indigenous strategists study it like a playbook.

The package establishes three core principles: Universality, impartiality, and non-selectivity. These aren't just fancy words. They're the legal foundation that can either lock Indigenous Peoples out or let them in.

The 5 Arguments States Use Against a New Indigenous Status

I've heard the same objections in conference rooms from New York to Geneva. Here are the five arguments states use to block a new Indigenous status, and why each one misreads the Institution Building Package.

1: "Creating New Status Violates Non-Selectivity"

States argue that creating a special status for Indigenous Peoples violates the principle of non-selectivity in the Institution Building Package.

This misunderstands what non-selectivity means.

The Institution Building Package emphasizes non-selectivity to ensure equal treatment in human rights reviews. But creating observer status for Indigenous Peoples doesn't violate this principle. It enhances universality.

Indigenous Peoples are recognized under international law as distinct collective rights-holders. Creating appropriate participation mechanisms doesn't create privilege. It rectifies historical exclusion.

2: "Protect the Council's Intergovernmental Process"

States claim that because the Council is intergovernmental, it can't create new observer categories.

But the Institution Building Package explicitly provides for non-state participation.

The resolution doesn't limit the Council to existing participation categories. It mandates engagement with relevant stakeholders. Indigenous Peoples aren't just another civil society group. They're distinct peoples with inherent rights to self-determination.

3: "Existing Mechanisms Are Sufficient"

This is the "separate but equal" argument in diplomatic clothing.

Yes, Indigenous Peoples can participate through NGOs. But that's not the same as direct representation through their own institutions.

The Institution Building Package calls for "the most effective contribution" from participants. How can contribution be most effective when Indigenous Peoples must speak through intermediaries about their own rights?

4: "New Status Would Politicize the Council"

States worry that creating Indigenous observer status would open floodgates to political manipulation.

This fear is backwards.

The Institution Building Package emphasizes constructive engagement. Indigenous Peoples' concerns about land rights, cultural preservation, and environmental stewardship aren't political positions. They're fundamental human rights issues.

Direct Indigenous participation would depoliticize these discussions, not politicize them.

5: "The IB Package Doesn't Allow New Categories"

This is where states get it most wrong.

Section VII rule 1 of the Institution Building Package explicitly gives the Council discretion to make procedural interpretations. The resolution doesn't lock in existing participation categories forever.

The Council has authority to evolve its practices as understanding of human rights develops. Creating Indigenous observer status is exactly this kind of evolution.