How to Use UNDRIP (Why It's Actually Dangerous)
COP30 day 3 of 30: How just two words can open the door to cherry-picking Indigenous rights.
Welcome to day 3 of your 30-Day Series
Over the next 30 days, we’re building from LCIPP mechanics through Indigenous participation frameworks to COP negotiating tactics. By day 30, you’ll understand how Indigenous Peoples move from values to operative text at the world’s largest climate negotiations. Today we’re talking about why the UNDRIP reference in the FWG text isn’t as strong as people think.
The Facilitative Working Group operative text includes this phrase:
“Emphasizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its entirety in the context of the implementation of the functions of the platform.”
A lot of Indigenous Peoples advertise this as a huge win. UNDRIP is referenced. It’s emphasized. It’s in the operative text.
But there’s a legal problem with those two words: “in its entirety.”
And it was added at the last minute by a delegation that wasn’t helpful throughout the negotiations.
Here’s what nobody else will tell you: Those two words actually weaken the UNDRIP reference instead of strengthening it.
What IT Actually Means
When you add the phrase “in its entirety” to a reference to UNDRIP, you create a logical problem.
If UNDRIP needs to be interpreted “in its entirety,” that implies that by default, it doesn’t have to be interpreted holistically.
Follow the logic: If you have to specify “in its entirety,” you’re admitting that cherry-picking individual articles is otherwise acceptable.
That’s the opposite of what we want.
UNDRIP is already an integrated framework. All provisions are indivisible, interdependent, and interconnected. You can’t interpret one article in isolation from the others. That’s foundational to how human rights instruments work.
But “in its entirety” opens the door for States to argue: “Well, since you emphasized that UNDRIP should be read ‘in its entirety’ here, that means in other contexts, we can read it selectively.”
Why Jackfruit Added It (And Why That Matters)
Jackfruit (I’m not using States’ names anymore but fruits) was not helpful during the LCIPP negotiations from Bonn 2016 through Katowice 2018.
Then, right before the final gavel in Katowice, they inserted “in its entirety” into the text.
Why?
Because jackfruit has a specific interest in emphasizing Article 46.1 of UNDRIP: territorial integrity.
Article 46.1 says: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as... authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”
States like jackfruit love Article 46.1. They use it to argue that Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination and land can’t threaten State sovereignty.
By adding “in its entirety,” jackfruit created an opening to cherry-pick Article 46 while claiming they’re honoring the full Declaration.
That’s the move.
The Cherry-Picking Danger
Here’s the pattern you’ll see:
A State wants to limit Indigenous Peoples’ rights. They invoke UNDRIP Article 46: “We respect UNDRIP, but Article 46 says territorial integrity must be protected.”
They ignore the other 45 articles. They ignore Article 3 (right to self-determination). They ignore Article 26 (rights to lands and resources). They ignore Article 32 (free, prior, and informed consent).
They cherry-pick the one provision that protects State interests.
And if challenged, they can point to the “in its entirety” language in the LCIPP text and say: “See? Even you emphasized that UNDRIP should be read in its entirety. We’re doing exactly that. Article 46 is part of the entirety.”
That’s the trap.
Our Position: UNDRIP Is Already Indivisible
Our counter-argument is straightforward:
UNDRIP is indivisible, interdependent, and interconnected. All provisions must be interpreted together. You cannot read Article 46 in isolation from Articles 3, 26, 32, and the rest.
Self-determination, land rights, and consent don’t disappear because Article 46 mentions territorial integrity. They have to be read together and balanced.
That’s how human rights frameworks work.
But by allowing “in its entirety” into the text, we created an opening for bad-faith actors to claim they’re being holistic when they’re actually being selective.
Why We Accepted It Anyway
Jackfruit came with the edit 5 minutes before the end, and we were managing a careful balance, we accepted it within the confines of the LCIPP and the FWG, the “in its entirety” language is manageable.
The platform’s work is about knowledge systems, exchange of experiences, and enhancing engagement. The risk of states weaponizing Article 46 to undermine land rights is lower in this specific context.
But here’s the warning: Don’t advertise this language as a template for other contexts.
If “in its entirety” becomes standard language in every UNDRIP reference, we’ve opened Pandora’s box.
States will start cherry-picking across all UN processes, and they’ll point to Indigenous Peoples’ own advocacy for “in its entirety” language as justification.
That’s the long-term risk.
How To Invoke UNDRIP (Without Reopening It)
Avoid “in its entirety” in new contexts. When drafting new documents, advocate for UNDRIP references without qualification. Just: “Recalling the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
Emphasize indivisibility directly. If you need to strengthen the reference, use: “Recalling that all provisions of UNDRIP are indivisible, interdependent, and interconnected.”
Counter Article 46 cherry-picking immediately. When states invoke Article 46 in isolation, respond: “Article 46.1 must be read in conjunction with 46.2, 46.3, 45, and 43.”
Never invite States to define Indigenous Peoples. The moment you start negotiating definitions, you lose. Indigenous Peoples define themselves through self-identification. There’s a working definition (Martínez Cobo). Don’t open the door to formal definitions that could exclude peoples.
Use UNDRIP as a normative framework, not a negotiating text. UNDRIP is the baseline. It’s the framework in which all climate action should occur. It’s not something you negotiate. You invoke it. You reference it. You don’t debate its provisions.
Why Legal Precision Matters
This isn’t pedantic legal hairsplitting.
Language creates frameworks.
Frameworks create precedents.
Precedents create power dynamics.
When jackfruit added “in its entirety” in Katowice, they weren’t being helpful. They were creating legal ambiguity that favors States.
Within the LCIPP context, we can manage it. But if that language spreads, we’ve handed States a tool to cherry-pick rights while claiming they’re honoring UNDRIP.
That’s not a win. That’s a long-term risk.
Before You Go
Two things I want you to remember:
UNDRIP is already indivisible. You don’t need to say “in its entirety” to make it strong. The Declaration is already an integrated framework. All provisions are interconnected. Adding qualifiers actually weakens it by implying cherry-picking is otherwise acceptable.
Article 46.1 is States’ favorite provision. Territorial integrity sounds neutral. But it’s the go-to justification for limiting Indigenous self-determination and land rights. When they invoke Article 46 in isolation, call it out immediately. Here’s two things you can counter it with.
Article 46 must be read with Articles 3, 26, and 32.
Article 46.1 must include in the same para 46.2, 46.3, 45 and 43.
Here’s the principle: Be careful what you celebrate.
“In its entirety” sounds like a victory. It was added at the last minute by a State that wasn’t helpful throughout the negotiations.
Within the LCIPP, it’s manageable. But if it becomes standard language across UN or UNFCCC processes, we’ve opened the door to systematic cherry-picking of the one provision that limits Indigenous rights.
That’s not a win. That’s a warning.
That’s it for today, tomorrow we’ll talk about how to navigate the catch-all bucket trap and what happens when the FWG gets invited instead of the caucus, and why that’s exactly what we fought to avoid.
See you tomorrow!
P.S.: What’s one phrase in your context that sounds protective but actually creates a loophole?