Artigos

INTRODUCTION
Background
The indigenous women all over the world continue to endure disparities on health due to social, historical and economic chances. These inequalities are usually worsened by limited legal rights and prejudice in the medical facilities. In some parts of the world the health rights of Indigenous women are protected to certain extent; this has been informed by the UNDRIP and CEDAW1 However, these rights’ enforcement is not devoid of defilement Despite this, the protection of these rights in practice is not very sound. While the legal environment and judicial response in some countries are strong, others have flaws, and getting appropriate healthcare, legal redress, and protection of Indigenous women’s health rights remain out of bounds. Indigenous women’s health rights therefore remain legally precarious and this deserves a judicial exploration.
This article is a novelty as it bridges the gap between existing international legal frameworks and their practical application in safeguarding the health rights of Indigenous women. It delves into comparative jurisprudence, highlighting disparities and identifying innovative legal strategies from various jurisdictions. By offering actionable recommendations for policymakers and legal practitioners, this study contributes to the advancement of knowledge and promotes a more equitable approach to health rights enforcement, especially for marginalized communities.
Research Problem
Existing literature shows that despite the receipt of recognition at the international level; Indigenous women are still experiencing a number of constraints in achieving health rights. Such barriers range from legal one’s including; inadequate health care for minorities, xenophobic laws, failed legal reforms and lack of adequate policies and services that are embraced by the culture of the circuits. There are concerns arising from the inconsistencies in the judicial interpretation and enforcement of these rights across the jurisdictions The protection of Indigenous women’s health rights is therefore a major concern in the international realm.
Objectives of the Study
? To analyze and compare the jurisprudence on Indigenous women's health rights across different jurisdictions.
? To identify the common legal challenges faced by Indigenous women in accessing healthcare.
? To examine the role of international law in influencing national legal frameworks concerning Indigenous women's health rights.
? To propose recommendations for strengthening the global and national legal frameworks to better protect these rights.
Research Questions
1. How do different jurisdictions interpret and enforce the health rights of Indigenous women?
2. What are the common legal challenges Indigenous women face in accessing healthcare?
3. How does international law contribute to the protection and promotion of Indigenous women's health rights?
4. What are the best practices and legal innovations that can be adopted to improve the protection of these rights?
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study is that those jurisdictions where governments have active commitments to human rights and Indigenous rights and are often driven by a participative judiciary, there is evidence of stronger protection of Indigenous women’s rights to health. By contrast, in countries where these commitments are not as strong, the Indigenous women cannot easily claim their health rights; this is why they are much less healthy.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Global Health Rights and Indigenous Women
There has been an increasing literature published on the subject of the connection between health rights and Indigenous rights, in the context of human rights in the world. Xanthaki2 and Anaya3 have argued for respecting cultural difference in the provision of health rights especially as it will affect Indigenous women. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and CEDAW are known international legal sources that give a legal backing for indigenous women’s health rights, but their interpretations are still patchy at the national level.
Indigenous women face multiple layers of discrimination based on their gender and ethnic identities, leading to experiences of inequality and violence.2 Due to the interdependence of various identities problems like poverty, racism and language make their marginalisation even worse.3 By culturally navigating their identities indigenous women leaders find confidence in their responsibilities in both indigenous and wider society contexts4. The intersection of various identities also effects health outcomes, as seen in the experiences of Maori women who adapt to climate change differently based on their unique subjectivities5.
Customary laws often serve as the primary legal framework for health rights in tribal communities, reflecting cultural values and practices. For instance, in native American tribes, customary law is frequently cited in tribal courts, impacting health related decisions and community welfare. The integration of customary law into contemporary education analysis varies by trial, affecting how health rights are interpreted and enforced6. State law can recognise an incorporate principle of customary law, providing a formal structure for health rights within tribal jurisdictions, although it may also impose state standards that are at odds with local customs. This recognition can improve access to health services by bringing state resources into line with tribal health demands.
In some regions, religious laws in the set with customary laws, modifying health rights based on religious beliefs and practices, as seen in the Pashtunwali code, depending on how religious interpretations fit in with state laws and tribal practices, this interplay may benefit or harm health rights. Systemic discrimination significantly impacts the legal outcomes and healthcare access for tribal women as evidenced by various studies Due to historical injustices, socioeconomic marginalisation and institutional racism; these women face additional obstacles that are intensified in the legal and healthcare systems.
Tribal demand often resides in remote areas, limiting their access to healthcare facilities7. Mainstream healthcare services frequently lack cultural sensitivity, leading to mistrust and reluctance to seek care among tribal women.8 Research shows that structural injustices worsen the health results for indigenous women who have lower health outcomes, than their non-indigenous peers9. Indigenous women are disproportionately represented in criminal justice systems, which reflects broader systemic discrimination10. While systemic discrimination presents significant challenges, some initiatives aim to address these disparities through community engagement and culturally relevant healthcare practises. However, the effectiveness of these strategies remains limited without comprehensive systemic reform.
Overall Indigenous women are far from hospitals and clinics, often have language barriers, and do not receive adequate culturally sensitive care. These barriers have been found to be made worse by racism in the health care sector and other socio-economic factors4. First, the literature shows colonialism’s influence on the present-day health inequities, in which Indigenous women are frequently at a higher risk of adverse health5.
Judicial Interpretations of Health Rights
Judiciary research on Indigenous women's health rights is fairly young and differs by province and territory. As mentioned before in this article, the Canadian court has actively recognized and protected indigenous women's health rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Major Supreme Court rulings have established that Indigenous women have the right to non-discrimination in health services and that culturally safe health care is effective.
According to scholars, judicial acts in Brazil and India have not been healthy. Good rulings have confirmed Indigenous women's health rights, but weak compliance mechanisms and tender age ethnic prejudice sometimes balance them. Many courts have struggled to preserve Indigenous women's health rights while preserving public health, resulting in rulings that don't sufficiently meet their rights6.
Challenges in Protecting Indigenous Women’s Health Rights
The preservation of Indigenous women's health rights is complicated by past injustices and socioeconomic deprivation. Indigenous legal systems and cultural practices are not recognized in national legal frameworks, which is a major issue. Without acknowledgment, Indigenous women's legal rights and healthcare access are frequently disconnected7. The remoteness of Indigenous communities typically exacerbates healthcare underfunding. Underfunding reduces infrastructure, medical staff, and culturally appropriate treatments, worsening health disparities8. Indigenous women endure stigma and prejudice in the healthcare system, especially for reproductive health services, which makes treatment difficult9.
The Role of International Law
International law is relevant in the formation of nations’ law on indigenous women’s reproductive health. Documents such as UNDRIP and CEDAW outline norms that should govern the protection of these rights and the principles based on the two documents have been adopted into domestic laws to different extents. For instance, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has relied on International human rights instruments in its decisions regarding health rights of Indigenous women and thereby creating legal milestones7.
Nonetheless, as in the case of the protection of health rights of Indigenous women and girls, international law is rather weak due to the absence of strong enforcement tools and due to the fact that some states have been implementing international standards only formally. Also, where sex and Indigenous background are combined, there are silences in international human rights law protections.
Research Gap
Scholars popularized Indigenous and health rights, but few have examined them interconnectedness for Indigenous women. Many studies on Indigenous people's rights or women's health ignores Indigenous women's concerns. There are few comparative legal studies on how governments protect Indigenous women's health rights. Indigenous women's health rights are protected by international law, but actual evidence of state compliance is sparse. Countries with weak legislation and insufficient judicial authority seldom safeguard indigenous women's health rights. This study examines Indigenous women's health rights jurisprudence across jurisdictions to address these gaps. The research examines how various legal systems safeguard these rights to discover the legal standards and rising legal profession that support Indigenous Women's Health Rights worldwide.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative comparative legal research design to examine how different jurisdictions interpret and enforce the health rights of indigenous women. The research involves doctrinal analysis of legal instruments (statutes, treaties and case laws) and non- doctrinal analysis through thematic examination of judicial reasoning. The research is qualitative in nature and involves an in-depth analysis of legal texts, including court decisions, statutes, and international treaties. The comparative approach allows for the identification of common trends, differences, and best practices in the legal protection of Indigenous women's health rights.
Cases and Jurisdiction Selection
Jurisdiction were selected purposively to reflect diverse legal systems, levels of indigenous rights, recognition and geographic variation. The countries include Canada, Brazil, India, Australia and United States, each representing a unique intersection of constitutional rights and colonial legacies and judicial practices.
Cases were selected based on
• Relevance to health rights of indigenous women. (e.g., maternal health, Reproductive Justice, Healthcare access).
• Availability of return gentlemen from high courts and constitutional tribunals.
• Cases that demonstrate either progressive or conducted interpretations of indigenous women’s health rights.
Data Collection
Primary sources included:
• Judicial decisions from national courts.
• International treaties (e.g., UNDRIP, CEDAW, ICESCR).
• Constitutional provisions and national statutes.
Secondary sources included:
• Scholarly articles
• NGO reports
• UN and WHO health rights assessments
• Government publications
Data Analysis
A manual thematic coding strategy was used to analyse judicial texts. Each case was coded using a matrix of pre-determined themes derived from the literature and policy documents, with flexibility to incorporate emergent themes. The main thematic categories included
• Recognition of indigenous identity and gender
• Judicial reasoning on health rights and intersectionality.
• Use of international legal standards.
• Cultural sensitivity in legal decisions
• Enforcement mechanisms and remedies
During Analysis:
• Themes were first reductively identified from prior studies.
• Additional subthemes emerged inductively, such as “customary law integration,” “socio-economic barriers,” and “healthcare discrimination”.
• A cross-case comparison helped in mapping convergences and divergences in judicial logic
Software like NVivo was not used due to small manageable sample size and manual coding ensured closure, textual engagement with judgments.
Validity and Reliability
• To enhance the rigour and trustworthiness of the study:
• Triangulation was applied by consulting legal documents alongside policy reports, academic critiques and human rights assessment.
• Peer debriefing: The thematic coding framework and emerging findings were discussed with legal scholars and Indigenous rights researchers to validate interpretive accuracy.
• Transparency. A research log was maintained detailing case selection, coding decisions, and interpretation processes.
• Comparability: A standard analytic template was used to assess all cases uniformly, ensuring internal consistency across jurisdictions.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
The 2007 UN General Assembly Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms Indigenous Peoples' rights to health. It protects Indigenous rights domestically and internationally and played a vital role in shaping national and international legislation regarding Indigenous people.
However, Article 24 of the UNDRIP states that Indigenous people have the right to the best bodily and mental health. This article emphasizes cultural competency in health care and the right to health as a human right. This is crucial for aboriginal women, whose health needs are often ethnically related. It requires healthcare providers to recognize Aboriginal persons, philosophy, and management, thus Aboriginal women's health cannot be assessed and managed in isolation.
Only minimal national acceptance of UNDRIP exists. Some nations have embraced UNDRIP as part of their legal system, while others have not due to conflicting legislation or economic reasons. In health care, the inequality is particularly evident. In many Indigenous women's births, lack of resources, political will, or legal recognition of Indigenous health care institutions hinders culture-appropriate delivery.
The fact that UNDRIP is non-binding adds to the difficulty. Despite outlining many rights and norms, the country's success depends on nations' capacity and willingness to implement them. Even while UNDRIP guarantees health legal rights and sustainable health care services for Indigenous women, they may not be able to exercise them. The reader should realize that this disparity between international norms and national implementation currently hinders Indigenous women's health rights worldwide8.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
The 1979 UN General Assembly CEDAW is another cornerstone of human rights diplomacy abroad. It provides a framework for fighting gender discrimination and AH and health rights. CEDAW is important for Indigenous women's health since it considers intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position.
CEDAW's General Recommendation No. 24 emphasizes women's health care's accessibility, acceptance, and quality. This approach is especially critical for Indigenous women, who endure double or triple marginalization that prevents them from getting health care. Indigenous women face gender discrimination in hospitals and other types of racial or ethnic prejudice that denies them appropriate health treatment.
CEDAW required reporting of all obstetric fistula cases and removed cultural obstacles to health treatment. Thus, for Indigenous women, rights include both access to health care and respect for Indigenous ways of knowing and living. This is crucial because it addresses Indigenous women's cultural and traditional health concerns.
CEDAW is a powerful normative document approved by most nations, but its implementation varies. In most countries, CEDAW has not been implemented into local law, leaving Indigenous women without legal recourse. CEDAW monitoring and enforcement are poor since the monitoring body relies on state and non-governmental organization reports. This allows most governments to violate their convention obligations with impunity. It prevents indigenous women from exercising their CEDAW health rights2.
Other Relevant International Instruments
Other international instruments assist in preserving Indigenous women's health rights besides UNDRIP and CEDAW. These tools raise awareness of Indigenous women's inequality and health as a human right. Examples include the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is why Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights guaranteed the right to health. The covenant also specifies that governments must support Indigenous women's access to health care as outlined in the bill of rights and freedoms. Progressive realization allows for flexibility by acknowledging that states are at various stages of development but expecting them to work toward improvement.
Indigenous women's poor health, low socio-economic status, and marginalized culture make them more vulnerable to health care system challenges than their counterparts with better health, better jobs, and a dominant culture. Broad and extensive international obligations or programs cannot improve their health. The 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is another powerful weapon. The ICERD addresses racial discrimination, and Indigenous women face gender discrimination. Article 5 of ICERD requires governments to respect, preserve, promote, and realize everyone's right to equality before the law, including health and health care. Indigenous women need it because racial and ethnic prejudice limits their healthcare access.
Thus, like other international human rights agreements, its protection of Indigenous women's health rights depends on the country's local legislation and enforcement procedures. Many nations still face racial prejudice in healthcare, and Indigenous women are frequently denied basic medical treatment. Legal institutions that don't protect Indigenous women exacerbate these difficulties. In addition to these accords, the WHO and UNPFII have produced further programs. Organizations provide Indigenous people with guidance, guidelines, and a voice. Its impact is modest since their interpretations and suggestions lack compulsory force, which occasionally leads to national legal or policy changes.
JUDICIAL APPROACHES IN SELECTED JURISDICTIONS
Canada
Canada has led the way in court-protecting indigenous women's health rights. Derivations include: The Supreme Court of Canada has recently interpreted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to promote citizen rights. Some cases, including R. v. Sparrow 1990, have protected Indigenous peoples and upheld their Constitution Act, 1982 section 35 rights. In Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997), although not specific to indigenous women. The court’s reasoning emphasised substandard equality, recognising that equal treatment sometime requires differentiated services. This logic has influenced indigenous health litigation, especially when advocating for culturally appropriate care. In indigenous women’s cases, gods have increasingly embraced intersectional analysis, recognising that discrimination is compounded by both rays and gender. However, enforcement remains inconsistent. Despite favourable judgements many indigenous communities, particularly remote ones, continue to lack access to culturally safe healthcare due to funding shortfalls and provincial implementation failures. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal CHRD has repeatedly cited federal departments for failing to act on court orders regarding health equity for indigenous children and women.
Brazil
Brazil’s 1988 constitution guarantees health as a right and recognises indigenous autonomy. But court’s reasoning has been inconsistent and politically entangled. In cases like Raposa serra, do sol, the Federal Supreme Court upheld indigenous territorial rights, which are deeply tied to health (via environmental and cultural determinants). However, judicial decisions rarely connect these rights explicitly to gendered health outcomes for indigenous women. Besides favourable rulings are often undermined by weak enforcement mechanisms, corruption and the lack of political will. For instance, judgments mandating health infrastructure in indigenous territories are often delayed, diluted or ignored, particularly in Amazonian and rural regions.
India
India's judiciary has expanded the meaning of Article 21(Right to Life) to include the right to health, particularly in cases like Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Sanity vs State of West Bengal. (1996) and PUCL vs Union of India (2001). Gods have recognised that the state has a positive obligation to provide healthcare, and in tribal contexts, this has occasionally included special schemes and reproductive care directives. However, the reasoning often lacks cultural contextualisation. Quotes in India rarely apply intersection or indigenous specific frameworks in their judgement and rulings are often principled. But wait, which limits enforceability Moreover, despite judicial orders, bureaucratic inaction, poor infrastructure and lack of interagency coordination have made implementation weak in tribal belts. Orders often remain declaratory without meaningful monitoring or follow-up with socioeconomic constraints and geographical access challenges, making tribal healthcare almost unattainable. Students' expectations of competent legal judgment from the courts don’t match their reality.
Australia
Australian courts have become more aware of the importance of integrating Indigenous legal traditions within the common law paradigm as a whole, most importantly through significant decisions like Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992), which legitimized native title rights, and legislative provisions like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, intended to guarantee equality before the law. Though these advances illustrate judicial openness to honouring cultural practices and increasing inclusion, their application to the health rights of Indigenous women is limited. Judges have supported culturally responsive health care as an essential standard but issued few judgments specifically regarding gendered health disparities among Indigenous populations. In dealing with sexist or discriminatory case law, courts attempt to reconcile public health necessities with Indigenous self-governance. Yet, even with recognition of systemic impediments like poverty, distance, and institutional discrimination, courts tend to abdicate to administrative agencies the task of enforcement. This dependence, combined with jurisdictional fragmentation and persistent underfunding, effectively frustrates effective implementation of judicial orders in Indigenous health cases.
United States (US)
In the United States, Indigenous health rights are inherently tied to the federal trust doctrine, which determines the government's role in guaranteeing the well-being of Native nations. The enforcement of these rights in practice, however, is limited. The case Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) cemented the principle of tribal sovereignty and designated authority for tribes over affairs internal to their own control without interference from outside forces. As this sovereignty gives tribes the ability to make independent choices, it also may limit the progression of Indigenous women's health rights when tribal codes are limiting. Tribes and courts routinely recognize both tribal sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility but generally do not require direct enforcement of health rights, leaving that instead to political branches. The Indian Health Service (IHS), the major healthcare delivery system for Indigenous peoples, remains plagued with chronic underfunding, substandard infrastructure, and judicial oversight in short supply, so constitutional or statutory promises seldom equate to real improvements in access to care or health outcomes.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL REASONING
Indigenous women's health rights appear tangled in the constitution, culture, enforcement, and society. The legal systems, customs, socio-political context, and judicial sensitivity to indigenous women's situation vary amongst countries. Constitutional Protections and Interpretations Constitutional protections play a pivotal role in shaping judicial reasoning on Indigenous women's health rights, yet the degree of influence varies significantly across jurisdictions.
• The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has helped the court determine Indigenous women's health rights. Over time, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted constitutional provisions to acknowledge indigenous people. Indigenous women's health rights have been advanced by the courts' consideration of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which ensures and protects Aboriginal and treaty rights. As in R. v. Sparrow (1990), any breach of these rights must be justified by the Crown's fiduciary responsibility to Indigenous people. This form of judicial reasoning makes constitutional provisions for Indigenous women's health rights permanent.
• Brazil, however, is less clear: The 1988 Constitution protects Indigenous people's health care and other rights, but the courts have not always upheld them. The Federal Supreme Court has made progressive Indigenous sovereignty rulings like the Raposa Serra do Sol case, but political and economic factors hinder their implementation2. This is not unique to the PLNC; it is typical of Brazil's constitution, which routinely conflicts constitutional rights with power politics and money.
• Indian court has been highly liberal in recognizing health as part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme Court enhanced this entitlement to include health care for Indigenous Women. However, judicial interpretation has not always been consistent or complete. In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the court stressed the need for medical facilities in the state, although Indigenous women's access to them seemed to differ by state. The socio-political conditions of each case determine constitutional rights protection in India; hence, verdicts are volatile.
Cultural Sensitivity in Judicial Decisions
The extent to which courts incorporate cultural sensitivity into their reasoning varies across jurisdictions, reflecting differences in how legal systems view Indigenous traditions and practices.
• In Canada, courts have used force to address the issue of culturally acceptable health care for Indigenous women. It suggests that cultural relevance has moved from being an additional factor in entitlement to a major component of equitable and fair services in contemporary society. In Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997), the court found refusal of sign language interpreters to deaf hospital patients to be discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. Although not particularly about Indigenous women, this judgement's ideas of tolerance and cross-cultural understanding have been used to Indigenous health rights disputes.
• The Australian court has shown an increasing interest in incorporating Indigenous culture into the legal system. Recognition of Indigenous customary law, particularly on Indigenous women's health and reproductive rights, has proven helpful. In Mabo v. Queensland (No 2) 1992, the High Court emphasized the need of culturally appropriate health treatments for Indigenous people. This has made it easier to adopt Indigenous cultural practices into national law to close the gap between Indigenous legal standards and universal legal norms.
• In Brazil and India, cultural significance as a transition in court judgments is subordinate to public health considerations. Courts may include cultural sensitivity into health care delivery, but not always. In Brazil, Indigenous women's issues are usually ignored in favor of health care system growth. Like in India, the judiciary has sometimes recognized Indigenous customs, such as in Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992), but rarely turns such acknowledgement into culturally sensitive policies.
Legal Remedies in Practice - Impact, Challenges, and case Realities
Despite progressive legal frameworks and favourable judicial decisions in many jurisdictions, the practical realisation of indigenous women's health rights remain inconsistent. The gap between legal recognition and execution is frequently influenced by political lethargy, logistical difficulties and structural inequalities.
1. Real life examples of legal remedies
• Canada: The 2019 First Nations’ child and family caring society before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a striking example of Remedial action. The tribunal ordered compensation to indigenous children and families for systemic discrimination in healthcare and social services. However, the federal government delayed compliance and challenged the ruling in court, highlighting the limits of enforcement even in strong legal systems.
• India: In PUCL vs Union of India. The Supreme Court expanded the right food and health, resulting in schemes like National Rural Health Mission. However, studies showed that indigenous women in states like Jharkhand and Odisha still face major gaps in accessing their basic maternal healthcare services due to language barriers, caste stigma and geographic isolation (NFHS-5,2021). Judicial remedies exist, but are often only partially implemented at the ground level.
• Brazil: Although the federal constitution recognises indigenous rights to culturally appropriate healthcare, news reports and watchdog organisations have documented ongoing neglect in the Amazon region, where indigenous women lack access to reproductive healthcare services. Court-ordered health interventions (E.g. mobile clinics) have been delayed due to political instability and bureaucratic fragmentation.
2. Gaps and Barriers in Implementation
• Limited access to courts: In all jurisdiction studied indigenous women rarely initiate litigation themselves due to financial constraints. Language barriers and fear of authority figures.
• Weak monitoring mechanisms: There is a lack of institutional follow-up to ensure the court orders are enforced, especially in remote tribal areas.
• Cultural stigma and discrimination: Even where remedies exist, social stigma and medical discrimination prevent indigenous women from fully benefiting from legal entitlements (e.g. being refused treatment in hospitals in India due to tribal or caste status).
• Successes: Some success stories have emerged in Canada and Australia, where community-led health centres and culturally competent midwifery programmes have improved outcomes for indigenous women. These efforts are often non- judicial but backed by legal mandates.
• Failures: In Brazil and India, state non-compliance with court rulings is a recurrent issue. In the U. S. Tribal Sovereignty sometimes creates a legal vacuum, where federal protections do not fully apply, and tribal remedies lack capacity.
COMMON CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS
Despite the advancements in judicial reasoning and legal frameworks, Indigenous women across various jurisdictions continue to face significant challenges in accessing their health rights. These challenges are deeply rooted in systemic issues that transcend legal boundaries5
Systemic Discrimination
Indigenous women still do not enjoy their rights to health because of the systemic discrimination in the health care systems. The discrimination is well seen even on the bases of service delivery and can range from refusals of services, abandonment, and differential medical treatment.
• Canada: To a certain extent, Canada provides the best social legal rights for the Indigenous women still, they often experience systematic racism in the health care sector. Testimonies of discriminative actions, which was presented in the 2015’s TRC report, prove that prejudice still influences the level of healthcare service for Indigenous women. The judiciary has been aware of this problem, and the recent judgments have stressed that these are systemic problems, but the continuation of these problems shows that ending discrimination cannot be done only through law.
• Brazil: In Brazil, therefore, social inequalities are intensified by the oppressive features of racism, sexism, and classism. Discrimination to indigenous women starts from their indigeneity and because they are women from disadvantaged economics backgrounds. The judiciary has on occasions dealt with such matters which are rife in many societies despite the fact that there is little enforcement and the dominating socio-political systems render the task unfruitful.
• India: In India, as a result of the effective abolition of untouchability, untouchability seems to have decided to take refuge in the cloak of the Civil Services and the professional classes including doctors and nurses. If the indigenous women belong to certain tribes that are still considered to be of low class, then they are bound to suffer double blow when it comes to their health issues. These challenges have been recognized by the judiciary at some occasions, concerning the practical application of anti-discrimination laws and legislations, however, they have not been effectively implemented most significantly affecting the rural and tribal regions where caste hierarchies are rigid.
Inadequate Legal Recognition of Indigenous Practices
One of the major challenges in many jurisdictions is the failure of the law to recognise Indigenous health practices. Many Indigenous Peoples’ legal systems are not incorporated into the national legislation and, consequently, health needs remain misunderstood and unaddressed.
• Australia: Despite this, there has been some measure of incorporation of Indigenous health practices into the Australian nation’s health policies. The expansion of traditional systems of healing, and hiring of Indigenous health workers as a way of closing this gap are some of the progressive reforms which have been made in this respect. However, there are obstacles in ensuring that equity of such practices can be accorded its proper and deserved status under the law.
• Canada: Likewise, there is progress in acknowledging Indigenist knowledge about health in Canada, particularly in regard to mental health and community-oriented practice. This integration has also been supported by judicial system where the court has realized the significance of culturally competent healthcare. However, the full apothecary of these practices is still a process in the making and further measures must still be taken in a bid to protect traditional knowledge as well as bringing it into the mainstream organizational-healthcare complex.
• Brazil and India: In Brazil and India, more specifically, there is less formal acknowledgment of the Indigenous health systems. Although there are certain legal provisions that cater to the utility of traditional knowledge in some or the other way, but they persistently fail to do justice to the conventional systems of medicine. Unfortunately, in Brazil especially, the traditional approach to medicine still remains deeply ingrained in the western model such that indigenous practices have very limited space. There exists a body such as AYUSH centers in India that embarks on the promotion of traditional medicine, but the inclusion of Indigenous health practices regarding the tribal people is still deficient.
Socio-Economic Barriers
Indigenous women experience socio-economic restraints which include; poverty, lack of education, and geographical isolation which adversely affects their health care. These barriers work in conjunction with legal frameworks and judgements whereby the effectiveness of health rights may be more of a shield than a reality.
• Canada and Australia: In Canada and Australia, there are especially disparities in socio- economic status in remote Indigenous populations. Firstly, because many of these communities are geographically isolated as well as having poor or no basic health care facilities to support Indigenous women. These difficulties have been recognised in the judicial level but the remedies are complex and may involve actions of different branches of the state and huge investments in measures of health care.
• Brazil: Other barriers related to education and poverty are also apparent in Brazil and hinder a person’s access to healthcare. In terms of access to healthcare, indigenous women especially those in the remote areas, they cannot easily seek appropriate healthcare information and services. The judiciary has acknowledged these barriers in some occasions however due to inadequacy of social policies to respond to some of these factors many indigenous women still encounter considerable difficulties to medical services.
• India: In India, social economic practices are compounded with caste and tribal for indigenous women that make it hard for them to be empowered. Among all these women, poverty, illiteracy, and the fact that they belong to the tribal areas predetermine their secondary position in healthcare systems. The judiciary has however tried to tackle these problems but it is always hampered by organizational problems and bureaucracy.
LIMIATATIONS OF THE STUDY
While this study provides an in-depth analysis of indigenous women's health rights across jurisdictions, it is not without limitations.
1. Selection bias: The jurisdictions and cases were purposefully selected to represent a diverse range of legal systems and indigenous populations. However, this limits generalizability and other important regions (New Zealand, South Africa) were not included due to scope constraints.
2. Data Access and Language Barriers: Full access to official translations of some Brazilian and regional Indian court cases was limited. Some decisions are not available in English, potentially affecting the depth of interpretation.
3. Lack of Quantitative data: This study is qualitative and nocturnal in nature, while grounded in real-world judgments and supported by secondary literature. The analysis lacks empirical fieldwork or direct testimony from indigenous women, which may limit the ability to assess actual lived experiences.
4. Normative Claims v. Empirical Realities: While the paper makes normative claims about the effectiveness of legal frameworks, these are partially supported by court rulings and reports from NGOs, UN agencies and national commissions (NFHS-5, India, CHRT Canada). However, systematic data on enforcement outcomes is limited, and further empirical research is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
Addressing the disparities in the judicial protection of Indigenous women’s health rights requires a multifaceted approach that includes legal reforms, capacity building, and international cooperation.
Strengthening Legal Frameworks
To better protect Indigenous women’s health rights, there is a need for stronger legal frameworks that explicitly recognize and protect these rights. Jurisdictions should consider adopting or amending laws to ensure that Indigenous women’s health rights are clearly defined and enforceable. For example:
• Canada and Australia could further strengthen their legal frameworks by enacting specific legislation that addresses the health rights of Indigenous women, building on existing constitutional and human rights protections.
• Brazil should focus on ensuring that its constitutional guarantees for Indigenous health rights are effectively enforced through stronger legal mechanisms and independent oversight bodies.
• India could benefit from clearer statutory provisions that specifically address the healthcare needs of Indigenous women, with a focus on implementing these provisions in tribal areas.
Enhancing Judicial Training and Awareness
Judicial training and awareness on issues related to Indigenous women’s health rights are crucial for improving the quality of judicial decisions. Specialized training programs for judges and legal practitioners should be developed to increase understanding of Indigenous issues, cultural sensitivity, and the specific health challenges faced by Indigenous women.
• Canada and Australia could enhance existing judicial training programs by incorporating more comprehensive modules on Indigenous health rights and cultural competence.
• Brazil and India should prioritize the development of judicial training programs that address the unique challenges faced by Indigenous women, with a focus on the intersection of gender, race, and socio-economic status.
Promoting International Cooperation
Collaboration with countries from across the world is central to redressing the global inequalities in Indigenous women’s health rights. National and international organizations like United Nations, World Health Organization can take very important part in disseminating the best practice on these rights and strengthening the national legal frameworks for protection of such rights. It will be easier for the international bodies to share of best practices across jurisdictions, thus assisting in preparation of improved legal frameworks for enforcement. Joint initiatives might also target educating governments about the recognition and application of Indigenous approaches to healing in their countries’ health systems with Indigenous peoples’ rights recognized and guaranteed by law.
CONCLUSION
Comparative scrutiny of global jurisprudence concerning Indigenous women’s health rights shows more implication given to certain rights than others. Thus, even in Canada and Australia, cultural competence and strong complaint mechanisms were observed to have only been partially realised; other countries, including Brazil and India, remain hindered by the inability to ensure that Indigenous women are able to realise their health rights in full. Pervasive racism, lack of appreciation of Indigenous law, and restricted access to resources comprise representative list of problems which cut across jurisdictions. In line with this approach, the recommendations of this study intend to appreciate the current global efforts in an attempt to enhance legal protection of Indigenous women’s health rights. Improving Indigenous women’s entitlements to adequate healthcare starts with improving the legal tools and judicial skills that apply in regions where Indigenous women reside.
REFERENCES
1. Xanthaki A. When universalism becomes a bully: Revisiting the interplay between cultural rights and women's rights. Human Rights Quarterly. 2019;41(3):701-24.
2. Anaya SJ. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.
3. Lewis ME, Volpert-Esmond HI, Deen JF, Modde E, Warne D. Stress and cardiometabolic disease risk for Indigenous populations throughout the lifespan. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021 Feb;18(4):1821.
4. McGillivray A, Comaskey B. Black eyes all of the time: Intimate violence, Aboriginal women, and the justice system. University of Toronto Press; 1999.
5. Watson N, Douglas H. Indigenous legal judgments: Bringing indigenous voices into judicial decision making. Taylor & Francis; 2021.
6. Curtis ME, Clingan SE, Guo H, Zhu Y, Mooney LJ, Hser YI. Disparities in digital access among American rural and urban households and implications for telemedicine?based services. The Journal of Rural Health. 2022 Jun;38(3):512-8.
7. Ford KA. Cultural and Psychological Factors in African Americans’ Reluctance to Seek or Complete Psychotherapy: A Decolonization Approach (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology).
8. Zwingel S. From intergovernmental negotiations to (sub) national change: A transnational perspective on the impact of CEDAW. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 2005 Sep 1;7(3):400-24.
9. Iyioha IO, editor. Women's health and the limits of law: domestic and international perspectives. Routledge; 2019 Dec 10.