The Impact of the Ban on Seal Products on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A European Issue

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 389-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothée Cambou

Abstract A ban on seal product for animal welfare concerns had been adopted by the EU Parliament in 2009. This article examines whether the ban can be contested on the grounds of its effect on indigenous rights. It will first be determined whether the directive encroaches on the rights of indigenous peoples, as proclaimed by the UN Declaration. Despite the clause that exempts the purchasing of seal products, of which the Inuit are benefactors of; it is still believed that the Declaration has been breached, and thus constitutes a violation of their cultural and economic rights. The second section examines how the Inuit have challenged the Directive Regulation on Seal product. Overall, through the examination of this case, the goal of this article is to highlight the legal challenges facing Europe vis-à-vis the development of indigenous peoples’ rights.

Author(s):  
Margret Carstens

Abstract This article analyses the impact of covid-19 on the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly in Brazil. It deals with the current situation of the Brazilian indigenous peoples, the impacts of the pandemic, the rights created on the adoption of protective sanitary measures for indigenous people and land rights in Brazil. Does the Brazilian government comply with international law, with constitutional rights of indigenous peoples in the current covid-19 crisis, particularly with the Brazilian Supreme Court decision on the adoption of protective sanitary measures for indigenous people? With a focus on the 2020 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this paper will identify and examine the gaps in protection of the indigenous peoples rights by reason of the impact of the covid-19 crisis. This paper argues that the crisis is misused as an occasion for land invasions, deforestation, forest fires and the denial of basic indigenous rights. Especially in Brazil, a transformative change, an emergency support for indigenous peoples, and a still stand agreement on logging and extractive industries operating next to indigenous communities are needed. Brazilian ngo statements give guidelines as to how to manage the threats of the present pandemic on indigenous peoples of Brazil. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation all offer further relevant suggestions as to how to address the serious impacts in the response to and the aftermath of this crisis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-148
Author(s):  
Margret Carstens

How to assess the issue of indigenous land rights in the face of man-m⁠a⁠d⁠e climate change and Amazon fires? How to classify the EU free trade agreement „Mercosur“ and relevant climate, environmental and indigenous rights? What are legal opportunities for indigenous people(s) on the international, inter-American and EU level, to prevent the loss of land and forests, and to protect themselves from climate change? On the basis of indigenous land and environmental rights in Brazil and reactions to the Amazon fires, environmental regulations of the "Mercosur Pact" as well as concerned human and indigenous rights are discussed. Further, this article deals with relevant inter-American law (individual indigenous land rights) and international law (collective land rights). Environmental and climate law provide legal and political options for indigenous people(s), for instance in Brasil. Negative impacts of climate actions on indigenous peoples, the competition between environmental protection areas and indigenous territories, the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in sustainable environmental protection and the allocation of Global Public Goods are discussed. There are various interactions between climate and biodiversity protection, human rights, indigenous peoples rights, and free trade between the EU and South America. While protecting forests as a carbon sink, negative environmental or social consequences must be avoided. Like trade agreements, environmental standards for the protection of the Brazilian Amazon rain forest should be enforceable. To reduce deforestation and to confine the effects of climate change, indigenous peoples rights have to be strengthened. The free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples to projects that may affect their territories is essential. It requires effective, coordinated solutions to protect human rights and indigenous land rights, and it needs a sustainable preservation of climate and forests - nationally and internationally. A collapse of the Amazon forest ecosystem would have global climate effects. In Brazil, alternatives to deforestation and destruction are: strengthening the rule of law and agro-ecology, and to defend indigenous territories.


Author(s):  
Sarah Sargent

The attention given to indigenous rights has increased since the approval of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Although it is a soft law declaration and technically not binding, it serves as the cornerstone of much of the contemporary research on indigenous rights. Four states that initially voted in opposition to the UNDRIP—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States—have now endorsed it. Despite the attention it garners, the UNDRIP is not the only international instrument that has been utilized to establish and protect indigenous rights and interests. The regional inter-American human rights system has also been key in the development and protection of indigenous rights. Another important facet of the UNDRIP is that it took twenty-two years of drafting effort before it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. During those twenty-two years, many discussions, debates, and analyses were undertaken over the meaning of rights and principles included in the drafts of the declaration. Research and scholarship from the era before passage of the declaration is helpful in understanding the content of the document. But the approval of the declaration did not end the controversies over indigenous rights. Debate and examination of the evolving body of indigenous rights continues during the period after passage of the declaration. As well, indigenous rights are not simply “human rights”; rather, they are a complex set of rights that can impact a broad swath of other legal doctrines. Intersections of indigenous rights with laws regarding economic development, the environment, and land claims can give rise to new interpretations and understandings of the impact of indigenous rights. While the four “no states” might be what most readily comes to mind when thinking about where many indigenous peoples live, indigenous peoples are, in fact, scattered throughout the world, including Europe. Research on indigenous rights is not carried out only from a legal perspective. Indigenous rights cover many different kinds of rights. Some have an emphasis in international law doctrines, such as the right to self-determination and issues about indigenous and tribal sovereignty. Other rights emphasize the importance of culture and heritage, and it can be useful to consider research in other disciplines, including history, political science, and anthropology. This article includes research and resources in related disciplines as well as legal research and law-based resources. (A note about language: American references to indigenous peoples are inclusive of the words “American Indian” or “Indian.” “Indian” is a legal term of art used in federal and state statutes. Indigenous peoples in the United States refer to themselves as “Indians” rather than Native Americans. For these reasons, where appropriate, the article makes use of the terms American Indian and Indian in preference to Native American. This usage may be confusing to non-American readers and so a clarification is offered).


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yogeswaran Subramaniam

<em>Orang Asli, the Indigenous minority of Peninsular Malaysia, continue to face formidable challenges in realizing their rights as distinct Indigenous peoples despite being ascribed a measure of constitutional and statutory protection. With reference the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and various international definitions of ‘Indigenous peoples’, this paper examines the impact of the term ‘Orang Asli’ on the Orang Asli struggle for the recognition of their rights as Indigenous Peoples. The term ‘Orang Asli’, an officially-constructed term to describe heterogeneous groups of people considered to be ‘aboriginal’, has since gained acceptance by the people categorized as such and has been used to advocate their rights as Indigenous peoples with relative success. However, the term carries legal implications which continue to place Orang Asli ethnicity and identity under the protection and equally, the control of the state. The extensive legal powers possessed by the state are arguably inconsistent of international norms on Indigenos rights and can additionally function as a tool to deny Orang Asli their attendant rights as Indigenous peoples. More importantly, the continued existence of these powers potentially functions to reinforce existing domestic challenges that Orang Asli face in finding their rightful place as distinct Indigenous peoples in the light of: (1) competing notions of Indigeneity vis-à-vis ethnic Malays; (2) historical discrimination against Orang Asli that continues to persist; and (3) Indigenous rights being construed as a possible hindrance to national economic prosperity. A possible starting point for the reconciliation of these matters may be to legally clarify the term ‘Orang Asli’ in a manner that sustains and respects the Orang Asli community as distinct Indigenous peoples while not threatening the existing special constitutional position afforded to ethnic Malays.</em>


FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Eckert ◽  
Nick XEMŦOLTW_ Claxton ◽  
Cameron Owens ◽  
Anna Johnston ◽  
Natalie C. Ban ◽  
...  

Policy-makers ideally pursue well-informed, socially just means to make environmental decisions. Indigenous peoples have used Indigenous knowledge (IK) to inform decisions about environmental management for millennia. In the last 50 years, many western societies have used environmental assessment (EA) processes to deliberate on industrial proposals, informed by scientific information. Recently EA processes have attempted to incorporate IK in some countries and regions, but practitioners and scholars have criticized the ability of EA to meaningfully engage IK. Here we consider these tensions in Canada, a country with economic focus on resource extraction and unresolved government-to-government relationships with Indigenous Nations. In 2019, the Canadian government passed the Impact Assessment Act, reinvigorating dialogue on the relationship between IK and EA. Addressing this opportunity, we examined obstacles between IK and EA via a systematic literature review, and qualitative analyses of publications and the Act itself. Our results and synthesis identify obstacles preventing the Act from meaningfully engaging IK, some of which are surmountable (e.g., failures to engage best practices, financial limitations), whereas others are substantial (e.g., knowledge incompatibilities, effects of colonization). Finally, we offer recommendations for practitioners and scholars towards ameliorating relationships between IK and EA towards improved decision-making and recognition of Indigenous rights.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annegret Engel ◽  
Ludivine Petetin

This article analyses the impact of Brexit on devolved competences in environmental protection. It maps the post-Brexit division of the United Kingdom (UK)’s internal (devolved) and external (international) competences and how this may shift when competences are returned from the European Union (EU). Crucially, the article suggests that certain of these EU powers do not simply derive from the EU but are, in fact, already held by the devolved regions in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Consequently, devolved competences are under threat of being pre-empted as the UK seeks to harmonise otherwise fragmented policies and legislation to comply with obligations at international level. This conundrum is illustrated here using a case study on genetically modified crop cultivation, which identifies the conflicts in the UK’s proclaimed strategy post-Brexit between international obligations and devolved competences and the legal challenges this entails.


2020 ◽  
pp. 145-163
Author(s):  
Monika Bučinskaitė ◽  
Deivydas Nikartas

This paper analyses the impact of the United Kingdom withdrawal procedure on the rights of EU citizens with permanent residence status in the United Kingdom to live with their family members in the country after Brexit and the legal challenges and perspectives arising from this procedure. It provides an overview of the international and national regulatory frameworks for the free movement of persons, and analyses possible models of relations between the United Kingdom and the EU after Brexit in relation to this fundamental freedom. The research focuses on the rights of people working in the United Kingdom to live with their family members and provides prospects for future legal regulation once the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the EU.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhys Jones

Climate change poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples around the world. Despite living in diverse contexts, Indigenous peoples face a number of common challenges. Disproportionate threats from climate change exist due to a range of factors including unique relationships with the natural environment, socioeconomic deprivation, a greater existing burden of disease, poorer access to and quality of health care, and political marginalization. Responses to climate change at global, national, and local levels also threaten Indigenous people’s rights. While climate action presents many opportunities to improve health and reduce inequities, there is also significant potential for climate mitigation and adaptation policies to inflict harm on Indigenous peoples. An important aspect of this is the impact on traditional lands, which are acknowledged as a fundamental determinant of Indigenous health and well-being. This article seeks to elucidate the relationships between climate change and Indigenous health and to inform health promotion solutions to achieve climate justice for Indigenous peoples. The underpinning analysis is founded on a Kaupapa Māori positioning, which seeks transformative change and involves critiquing Western knowledges and structures that undermine Indigenous rights. A central theme is that anthropogenic climate change is intimately connected to the ideologies, systems and practices of colonialism, and that the impacts on Indigenous peoples can be conceptualized as an intensification of the process of colonization. It is not possible to understand and address climate-related health impacts for Indigenous peoples without examining this broader context of colonial oppression, marginalization and dispossession. The challenge for health promotion is to engage in a process of decolonization. This involves deconstructing its own systems and practices to avoid reinforcing colonialism and perpetuating inequities. It also requires health promotion practitioners to support Indigenous self-determination and recognize Indigenous knowledges as a critical foundation for climate change and health solutions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 93-154
Author(s):  
Emilio C. Viano

Summary“Sharing” the Wealth? Minerals, oil, timber, medicines and now genetic wealth, all play a major role in development and all are the source of conflict, dispute and violations of indigenous peoples’ centuries-old rights. The driving force behind the relentless conflict between indigenous peoples and the waves of outsiders making forceful contact with them is the search for resources. Driven by an increasing realization that the Earth's riches are limited and at the same time by the fierce competition that globalization and economic policies have unleashed, and using increasingly sophisticated technology, both for discovery and exploitation, states and multinationals have been motivated and able to go, literally, where no outsider has gone before.The natural resources located in some of the Earth's most remote or inhospitable locations became especially available for exploitation when a number of new states sprung up in the post-World War II, postcolonial period. Elites and dominant groups, empowered to maintain security and promote trade, spurred by multinationals’ offers that they could not refuse and by international financial institutions loans and grants ”developed” natural resources, often igniting conflicts with indigenous nations. Frequently, these clashes led to the growth of the military, to arm races to ensure the monopoly on “development”, to authoritarian and corrupt regimes, and to the opposite of what was expected, increased poverty and inequality.The conflict is over the very issue of who owns the resources — a question that has been central to the rise of nationalism and the assertion of “ethnic” identity throughout the world. First Nation peoples realize that without their resource base, they have no future. They also believe that modem states, some of them relatively young, cannot legitimately claim resources that nation peoples have utilized and maintained for centuries. The manner in which this is done is also the subject of fierce disputes (e.g. damage or destruction of ancestral lands, food and water sources, way of life, income).States have traditionally received considerable help from other states and international organizations in appropriating the resources of indigenous peoples. Ironically, the improving economic conditions worldwide and the growing wealth of many in emerging economies have made this hunt and exploitation of natural resources even more urgent and seemingly legitimize it, given the increasing demand for consumer goods and technological items.Worldwide, multinational development industries help states to seize resources and put them up for sale on the world market — especially through “obvious” projects such as mining, oil exploration, and hydroelectric development.One issue is never, or at best rarely, addressed: Who owns the resources to begin with? Whose agreement is needed before proceeding? What is an equitable formula for sharing the earnings and mitigate displacement and environmental pollution and destruction? Laws introduced in the past few decades by ruling groups often deny first nations’ claims to their resources. Such laws, many indigenous groups argue, do not take precedence over their prior claims to resources. At stake are not only the issue of ownerships, but also the value of resources and who has the right to manage, extract and consume them. It is also a question of survival and identity.This work of critical criminology reviews the historical record of “exploration” and exploitation of resources showing that it is not a new phenomenon but rather a chronic situation that indigenous peoples have endured throughout the centuries. It examines the role that the state, the multinationals and the international financial institutions play in this clash over resources when indigenous peoples’ rights are often ignored, stepped upon and disregarded. It critically examines current efforts, treaties and policies meant to recognize and respect Native peoples’ rights. It shows that current measures are not truly addressing the key issues and that a concerted effort must be undertaken to change the equation and dynamics of power, dominion and use of the earth's riches.Development must be redefined, crafted and targeted in the right way taking into account and respecting all legitimate claims to the earth's wealth, especially those of the “First Nations” that have suffered throughout the centuries the impact of colonialism, racism, and wholesale theft of their riches on the part of the “developed” world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document