International law scholarship remains locked in a raging debate about the extent to which states do or do not comply with international legal norms. For years, this debate lacked empirical data altogether. International law advocates tended to assume that most nations obey most laws most of the time and proceeded to measure state activity against international norms through conventional legal analysis. In contrast, international relations realists and rational choice theorists have argued that international law is simply an epiphenomenon of other state interests with little independent power at all. Meanwhile, constructivist and transnational legal process approaches have posited that international law seeps into state behavior through psychological and sociological mechanisms of norm internalization and strategic action. But even these studies tend to remain on a theoretical level, without on-the-ground data about which factors might influence compliance in actual day-to-day settings.

African indigenous peoples confront gross human rights violations, both on the macrolevel of the peoples as a whole, and on the microlevel of the individuals belonging to them. These violations relate to such issues as the right to self-determination; the ownership of land and natural resources, as part of their right to life; the existence of distinct political and economic institutions; discrimination; and lack of access to justice. Taking these and other violations as a starting point, this article focuses on whether the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration),1 as adopted in 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly, might be instrumental in helping to solve these problems.