Abstract

This paper argues that neither the growth of a stronger regime of human rights, nor the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), would automatically guarantee an amelioration of the plight of vulnerable groups. Drawing on examples from Vietnam, Mexico and Ghana, this paper, rather than critique the ‘standards’, endorses each regime/programme with the suggestion of an inclusionary caveat: that both pay special attention to the plight of minorities and indigenous groups, and that the extent to which either process is deemed successful be measured against the extent to which it addresses the plight of vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples and minorities within states.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call