A/68/317 overcome their debilitating effects and advancing toward a strong global commitment to the Declaration and its implementation. Also discussed is the need for greater awareness of the Declaration and of its role as and instrument of reconciliation and social harmony. A. The normative weight of the Declaration 60. Throughout the course of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has heard numerous Governments emphatically characterize the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as non-binding or merely aspirational, thereby according the Declaration a diminished status and rationalizing a diminished commitment to its terms. Although the Special Rapporteur has addressed the issue of the Declaration’s status in past reports, given the persistent references to the Declaration as non-binding, the Special Rapporteur would like to again provide some observations on this issue. 61. The Special Rapporteur readily acknowledges that, under prevailing international law doctrine, declarations adopted by resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, unlike treaties, are not themselves direct sources of law. But to say simply that the Declaration is non-binding is an incomplete and potentially misleading characterization of its normative weight. It has long been widely understood that standard-setting resolutions of the General Assembly can and usually do have legal implications, especially if called “declarations”, a denomination usually reserved for standard-setting resolutions of profound significance. 62. The General Assembly has a long history of adopting declarations on various human rights issues, including the first international human rights instrument of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. These declarations, like other resolutions, are adopted by the General Assembly under the authority granted to it under Article 13 (1) (b) of the Charter of the United Nations to make recommendations for the purpose of assisting with the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. 63. Although technically a resolution, the Declaration has legal significance, first, because it reflects an important level of consensus at the global level about the content of indigenous peoples’ rights, and that consensus informs the general obligation that States have under the Charter — an undoubtedly binding multilateral treaty of the highest order — to respect and promote human rights, including under Articles 1 (2), 1 (3), 55 and 56 of the Charter. The Declaration was adopted by an overwhelming majority of Member States and with the support of indigenous peoples worldwide and, as noted earlier, the few States that voted against the Declaration each subsequently reversed their positions. Especially when representing such a widespread consensus, General Assembly resolutions on matters of human rights, having been adopted under the authority of the Charter itself, can and do inform Member States’ obligations under the human rights clauses of the Charter. 1 __________________ 1 16/22 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, 7th ed., 2009), p. 15. 13-42710