A/HRC/51/50 asymmetries and should be provided with resources to undertake this task. In conflict situations, the presence of third-party mediators may be desirable for preventing the imposition of solutions by one party on the other, compensating for asymmetry, so as to promote constructive dialogue and achieve meaningful outcomes. 86 V. Implementation of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements 45. When treaties, agreements or other constructive arrangements are established, indigenous peoples and States face multiple challenges and obstacles in implementing and enforcing them effectively and fully, including interpretation of the terms of the agreement and lack of technical and financial means, political will and harmonization with other regulations. A. Interpretation 46. A crucial element for the implementation of agreements is a common good-faith understanding of what both parties aim to achieve and how they wish to formalize an accord.87 Disagreement may arise between parties on the nature and scope of the agreement, on the meaning and interpretation of the words and concepts it contains, including how concepts are expressed in different languages and how they evolve according to changing circumstances and on the duration of the agreement.88 Many indigenous peoples report these kinds of concerns, particularly about alleged cessions or transfers of sovereignty, land and rights. 47. For example, the Maori and English versions of the Treaty of Waitangi differed greatly. In the Maori-language version, the Maori retain their sovereignty, self-determination and rights to their taonga (treasured property), while in the English-language version, Maori are said to have ceded sovereignty to the British Crown. 89 48. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clearly affirms that States should honour and respect treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements “in accordance with their true spirit and intent in good faith” and that due consideration should be given to how indigenous peoples understand them. Nevertheless, in Canada and the United States, restrictive contractual and literal interpretations are often preferred by the State over the original intent of agreement as understood by indigenous peoples. The States tend to secure, through their judicial systems, an interpretation of historical treaties as cession by indigenous nations of their territorial and sovereign rights to the Crown 90 as opposed to the intention of indigenous nations to establish a relationship of coexistence in terms of friendship and kinship, built on peace and mutual support. 91 Inherent rights should by no 86 87 88 89 90 91 Contributions of Civil Society Organizations and Networks of Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh; see also Miek Boltjes, “The implementation challenge in intrastate peace processes: an analysis”, in Implementing Negotiated Agreements: The Real Challenge to Intrastate Peace, Miek Boltjes, ed. (The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2007), p. 21. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20, para. 58. See the compilation of conclusions and recommendations from the United Nations seminars on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements; see also submission of the International Indian Treaty Council. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20, para. 280; see also Expert Mechanism advice under the country engagement mandate, New Zealand, para. 25, available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/Pages/RequestsUnderNewMandate.aspx. See https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1307460755710/1536862806124. Presentation of Chief Wilton Littlechild at the Expert Mechanism seminar; see also submissions of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba, the Friends of the Attawapiskat River and the Western Shoshone Defense Project; John Leonard Taylor, “Two views on the meaning of treaties six and seven”, in The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties, 3rd ed., Richard Price, ed. (Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, 1999), p. 39; and J. R. Miller, Lethal Legacy: Current Native Controversies in Canada (Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2004), p. 165. 11