Indigenous Rights: Recent Developments in International Law

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-310
Author(s):  
Julie Debeljak

“Indigenous peoples have been deprived of vast land holdings, and access to life sustaining resources, and they have suffered … activ[e] suppress[ion of] their political and cultural institutions. As a result indigenous people have been crippled economically and socially, their cohesiveness as communities has been damaged or threatened, and the integrity of their cultures has been undermined.”

1995 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Marquardt

AbstractIndigenous people- international law - self-determination. In recent years, indigenous people have become increasingly active at the international level. Recent developments, in particular the drafting of a UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, indicate that new rules of international law may be emerging from this process. The new developments raise the question of the legal status of indigenous peoples. This question has essentially two elements: whether indigenous peoples may claim sovereign rights and whether the right to self-determination of peoples is applicable to them. A number of arguments suggest that a positive answer may be given to these two questions. An important aspect in this context is that indigenous peoples should be distinguished from minorities.


Author(s):  
Farouk El-Hosseny ◽  
Patrick Devine

Abstract The intersection between foreign investment and human rights is gaining attention, as is evident from an increasing number of investment treaty awards analysing legal issues relating to human rights. In the recent International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration of Bear Creek v Peru, Philippe Sands QC posited, in a dissenting opinion, that the investor’s contribution to events—ie protests against its allegedly adverse environmental impact and disregard of indigenous rights, namely resulting from its ‘inability to obtain a “social licence”’—which led to the unlawful expropriation of its investment, was ‘significant and material’. He further noted that the investor’s ‘responsibilities are no less than those of the government’ and found that damages should thus be reduced. Last year, the Netherlands adopted a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which allows tribunals to ‘take into account non-compliance by the investor with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ when assessing damages. These recent developments shed light on how states and tribunals, as part of their decision-making process, can take into account human rights in practice, and crucially in respect of damages analyses. By first dissecting the concept of contributory fault, then shedding light on the intersection of investment treaty law and human rights, as elucidated in recent jurisprudence, this article questions whether there now exists a gateway for human rights obligations (soft or hard) in the investment treaty arbitration realm through the concept of contributory fault.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 133 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Yando Zakaria

Abstract: Arizona (2015b) reported that in the last mid-2015, there were lots of local regulation products intended as instruments to recognize the rights of indigenous people. Eventhough 40% of these products contain arrangements of the area, lands and communal forests, in reality, total area that have been effectively possessed by local communities were insignificant. According to Arizona (2015a), this condition occurred because the advocacy agenda trapped by the complexity of the diversity of the subjects and objects of the indigenous rights to be recognized and protected. This article was not about to argue that conclusion. However, this paper believes that the trap of complexity and diversity of the subjects and objects of the recognition of indigenous rights was enabled by three factors. First, the stakeholders within those complexity of definition came from generic concepts; second, failed to approach subjects and objects of the rights as a socio-antrophology reality at field level; and third, this problem was worsen by the stakeholders that barely have a proven instrument in finding sociological-anthropological reality. This article aims to fill those gaps. Keywords : Strategy, Recognition, Indigenous Peoples, socio-anthropologicalIntisari: Arizona (2015b) melaporkan bahwa tengah tahun 2015 lalu ada banyak produk hukum daerah yang dimakudkan sebagai instrument hukum pengakuan hak-hak masyarakat adat. Namun, meski 40% produk hukum daerah itu berisi pengaturan tentang wilayah, tanah dan hutan adat, di tingkat lapangan, total luas yang telah benar-benar efektif dikuasi masyarakat adat relatif sangat sedikit. Menurut Arizona (2015a), hal itu terjadi, antara lain, agenda advokasi terjebak oleh kerumitan keragaman subyek dan obyek hak-hak adat yang akan diakui dan dilindungi. Tulisan ini tak hendak membantah kesimpulan itu. Namun, tulisan ini percaya bahwa jebakan kerumitan keragaman subyek dan obyek pengakuan hak-hak masyarakat adat itu dimungkinkan oleh tiga hal. Pertama, para-pihak terjebak dengan perdebatan definisi dari beberapa konsep yang memang bersifat generik; kedua, alpa mendekati subyek dan obyek hak itu sebagai realitas sosio-antropologis di tingkat lapangan; dan ketiga, masalah ini diperumit oleh para-pihak nyaris tidak memiliki instrument yang teruji dalam menemukan realitas sosiologis-antropologi dimaskud. Tulisan ini disusun untuk mengisi kekosongan-kekosongan itu. Kata Kunci: Strategi, Pengakuan, Masyarakat Hukum Adat, sosio-antropologis


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-408
Author(s):  
M. Ya’kub Aiyub Kadir

This article investigates the problem of defining ‘people’ and ‘indigenous people’ under the International Human Rights Covenants and their application in the Indonesian context. Using analyses based on the Third World Approach to International Law (twail), this article shows the problems facing Indonesia in identifying indigenous peoples as traditional peoples, in terms of being isolated peoples (Masyarakat Hukum Adat, hereafter mha), and the non-isolated indigenous peoples who were sovereign before the independence of Indonesia. This interpretation has been confusing in relation to the entitlement to natural resources. Therefore, this article proposes a new understanding of indigenous peoples, in order to arrive at better treatment and recognition and in terms of sharing power and the benefits of natural resources in the Indonesian system.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 220-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibironke T. Odumosu-Ayanu

The extractive industry has contributed to the development of international law since colonial times. Contracts between states and extractive companies largely drive this global industry. This essay situates extractive industry contracts involving Indigenous peoples, long term actors who have significantly informed the development of international law, within the context of international law. While these contracts are usually analyzed from domestic perspectives, they are impacted by international norms and, as developing transnational practices, even have the potential to show ways ahead in international law. As regards engagement with Indigenous peoples, contracts, which are typically regarded as private instruments, have significant public ramifications. This is especially the case where states, Indigenous peoples, and transnational corporations (TNCs) are involved and where internationally recognized principles relating to Indigenous rights, notably free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) are implicated.


2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-131
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen

AbstractThe recent adoption of the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has reinvigorated the discourse on indigenous rights. This essay reviews three books – Xanthaki's Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-Determination, Culture and Land; Gilbert's Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights Under International Law: From Victims to Actors; and Rodriguez-Pinero's Indigenous Peoples, Postcolonialism and International Law: The ILO Regime (1919–1989) – that illustrate the way in which indigenous rights have evolved at the supranational level. Moreover, in their different ways, these important books highlight the conditions of possibility for indigenous peoples at a critical stage in the development of indigenous rights in international law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-40
Author(s):  
Enrico Albanesi

The 1995 Treaty concerning the accession of Finland and Sweden to the EU makes some express exceptions for their domestic legislation vis-à-vis EU legislation regarding some aspects of traditional reindeer husbandry carried out by the Sámi people. However, other fields in the EU law lack an express regulation concerning reindeer husbandry and this has led to much controversy. In Sweden, legislation on EU Natura 2000 areas identifies reindeer herders as stakeholders among many others, i.e. it does not as such address the Sámi as indigenous people. In Finland, the Act on Metsähallitus was amended in 2016 to be in compliance with EU trade laws; however, the new Act does not recognise any special status of the Sámi as indigenous people, giving rise to concerns especially with regards to reindeer husbandry. The extension of Protocol No 3 to the Accession Treaty to other matters by a unanimous vote of the Council could be a solution to protect Sámi’s reindeer husbandry vis-à-vis EU legislation. Simultaneously, EU legislation should be interpreted in the light of the relevant rules of international law concerning indigenous peoples.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 215-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight Newman

International law on the rights of Indigenous peoples has developed rapidly in recent decades. In the latest phase of this development, international instruments on the rights of Indigenous peoples have increasingly offered universalized statements. However, the reality remains that the implementation of Indigenous rights must take place in particular circumstances in particular states. The form of domestic implementation of Indigenous rights may or may not connect closely to international law statements on these rights, and there may be good reasons for that. This essay takes up a particular example of Indigenous land rights and a significant recent development on land rights in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Author(s):  
Pat Lauderdale ◽  
Nicholas D. Natividad

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues estimates that there are over 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live. Dialogue and political negotiations with indigenous peoples has a long history that began at least a half a millennium ago when the notion of an inter-national” community and the concept of the nation-state became dominant. Since that time, the concepts of sovereignty, self-determination, rule of law, and human rights have led to the establishment of the frameworks and structures of organization that are now referred to collectively as modern international law. But unlike most modern international human rights law, which emphasizes rights of the individual, indigenous peoples generally think in terms of collective rather than individual rights. Because indigenous peoples’ “law” suggests the importance of collective rights, it renders a culture of responsibility and accountability to the collective. At present, international indigenous rights are a type of superficial bandage, giving the appearance of propriety to the crisis faced by the hegemonic “international system of states.” Therefore, indigenous rights standards propagated by organizations such as the UN currently are largely symbolic. However, they could potentially lead to real change if they are coupled with widespread acknowledgment of the fact that diverse societies exist throughout the world with different forms of social organization and diverse conceptions of law.


Polar Record ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Lorna Johnstone

Abstract The paper demonstrates how the evolution of international law on colonial and indigenous peoples, in particular evolving rights to sovereignty over natural resources, shaped the changing relationship between Greenland and the rest of the Danish Realm. Greenland today is in a unique position in international law, enjoying an extremely high degree of self-government. This paper explores the history, current status and future of Greenland through the lens of international law, to show how international obligations both colour its relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark and influence its approaches to resource development internally. It considers the invisibility of the Inuit population in the 1933 Eastern Greenland case that secured Danish sovereignty over the entire territory. It then turns to Denmark’s registration of Greenland as a non-self-governing territory (colony) in 1946 before Greenland’s-purported decolonisation in 1953 and the deficiencies of that process. In the second part of the 20th century, Denmark began to recognise the Greenland Inuit as an indigenous people before a gradual shift towards recognition of the Greenlanders as a people in international law, entitled to self-determination, including the right to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. This peaked with the Self-Government Act of 2009. The paper will then go on to assess competing interpretations of the Self-Government Act of 2009 according to which the Greenland self-government is the relevant decision-making body for an increasing number of fields of competence including, since 1 January 2010, the governance of extractive industries. Some, including members of the Greenland self-government, argue that the Self-Government Act constitutes full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007), but this view is not universally shared. The paper also considers the status and rights of two Greenland minorities: the North Greenlanders (Inughuit) and the East Greenlanders, each of whom has distinct histories, experiences of colonisation, dialects (or languages) and cultural traditions. While the Kingdom of Denmark accepts the existence of only one indigenous people, namely, the Inuit of Greenland, this view is increasingly being challenged in international fora, including the UN human rights treaty bodies, as the two minorities are in some cases considered distinct indigenous peoples. Their current position in Greenland as well as in a future fully independent Greenland is examined, and the rights that they hold against the Greenland self-government as well as the Kingdom of Denmark explored. Greenland’s domestic regime for governance of non-renewable natural resources (principally mining and hydrocarbons) is briefly analysed and compared with international standards, with a particular emphasis on public participation. The paper assesses the extent to which it complies with the standards in key international instruments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document