This research investigates the puzzling shift in stance by the CANZUS states (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Initially, in 2007, these liberal democracies voted against the declaration, citing concerns over sovereignty and self-determination principles. However, within a decade, all four countries had reversed their position and endorsed UNDRIP, despite no changes to the text. This study seeks to understand the factors that led to this reversal and how these states justified their shift on the global stage. Utilizing Putnam’s two-level game theory and global fields theory, the research proposes that the convergence of international norms with domestic factors, rather than either alone, drove the eventual endorsement of UNDRIP. Process tracing reveals that domestic political shifts, activism, and changes in coalition politics were pivotal in aligning domestic win-sets with international expectations. Moreover, this study highlights the rhetorical adaptation techniques employed by CANZUS states to localize the meaning of the declaration, thereby reconciling international commitments with domestic realities. Through an analysis of speeches, formerly confidential communications, and drafts of UNDRIP from Australia and Canada, the research uncovers the strategic efforts by these states to symbolically support Indigenous rights while navigating the tension between sovereignty and self-determination.