scholarly journals “Indigenous sovereignty” and right to self-determination in international law: a critical appraisal

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-82
Author(s):  
Rashwet Shrinkhal

It is worth recalling that the struggle of indigenous peoples to be recognised as “peoples” in true sense was at the forefront of their journey from an object to subject of international law. One of the most pressing concerns in their struggle was crafting their own sovereign space. The article aims to embrace and comprehend the concept of “indigenous sovereignty.” It argues that indigenous sovereignty may not have fixed contour, but it essentially confronts the idea of “empire of uniformity.” It is a source from which right to self-determination stems out and challenges the political and moral authority of States controlling indigenous population within their territory.

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

Abstract:While self-determination is a cardinal principle of international law, its meaning is often obscure. Yet international law clearly recognizes decolonization as a central application of the principle. Most ordinary people also agree that the liberation of colonial peoples was a moral triumph. This essay examines three philosophical theories of self-determination’s value, and asks which one best captures the reasons why decolonization was morally required. The instrumentalist theory holds that decolonization was required because subject peoples were unjustly governed, the democratic view holds that decolonization was required because subject peoples lacked democratic representation, and the associative view holds that decolonization was required because subject peoples were unable to affirm the political institutions their colonial rulers imposed on them. I argue that the associative view is superior to competing accounts, because it better reflects individuals’ “maker” interests in participating in shared political projects that they value. The essay further shows that if we accept the associative view, self-determination is not a sui generis value that applies to decolonization alone. Ultimately, our intuitions about decolonization can be justified only by invoking an interest on the part of persistently alienated groups in redrawing political boundaries. The same interest may justify self-determination in additional cases, such as autonomy for indigenous peoples, or greater independence for Scotland or Quebec.


Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert

The issue of sovereignty over natural resources has been a key element in the development of international law, notably leading to the emergence of the principle of States’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, concomitant to this focus on States’ sovereignty, international human rights law proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination over their natural resources. This has led to a complex and ambivalent relationship between the principle of States’ sovereignty over natural resources and peoples’ rights to natural resources. This chapter analyses this conflicting relationship and examines the emergence of the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and evaluates its potential role in contemporary advocacy. It notably explores how indigenous peoples have called for the revival of their right to sovereignty over natural resources, and how the global peasants’ movement has pushed for the recognition of the concept of food sovereignty.


Author(s):  
Ana Catarina Zema de Resende

Nos últimos 30 anos, a autonomia se tornou um novo paradigma na luta dos povos indígenas por descolonização. Organizações indígenas de todo o continente americano assumiram a autonomia como demanda central. No entanto, o debate em torno das demandas indígenas por autonomia tem gerado muitas polêmicas decorrentes da incompreensão sobre o que querem os movimentos indígenas quando reivindicam seu direito à autodeterminação e autonomia. Para melhor entendimento dessa questão, interessa-nos, aqui, trazer alguns elementos e conceitos que possibilitem apreciar as contribuições de três intelectuais indígenas a esse debate: Taiaiake Alfred, mohawk do Canada; Floriberto Díaz, mixe de Tlahuitoltepec eGersem Baniwa, do povo Baniwa do Alto Rio Negro e das propostas do Exército Zapatista de Libertação Nacional (EZLN). Veremos que a maneira como esses intelectuais e o EZLN vêm construindo suas ideias sobre autonomia funciona como veículo para suas críticas à imposição de controle por parte do Estado, levando esse último a perceber as inconsistências de seus próprios princípios e do tratamento que dá aos povos indígenas.Palavras-Chave: Autonomia Indígena, Pensamento Político, Autodeterminação, Movimento Indígena.Autonomía indígena en el pensamiento político de Taiaiake Alfred, Floriberto Díaz, Gersem Baniwa y en las propuestas del EZLNResumen: En los últimos 30 años, la autonomía se ha convertido en un nuevo paradigma en la lucha de los pueblos indígenas por descolonización. Organizaciones indígenas de todo el continente americano asumieron la autonomía como demanda central. Sin embargo, el debate en torno a las demandas indígenas por autonomía ha generado muchas polémicas derivadas de la incomprensión sobre lo que quieren los movimientos indígenas cuando reivindican su derecho a la autodeterminación y a la autonomía. Para entender mejor esta cuestión, nos interesa, aquí, traer algunos elementos y conceptos que posibiliten apreciar los aportes de tres intelectuales indígenas a ese debate: Taiaiake Alfred, mohawk de Canada; Floriberto Díaz, mixe de Tlahuitoltepec y Gersem Baniwa, del pueblo Baniwa del Alto Río Negro y de las propuestas del Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN). Veremos que la manera como estos intelectuales y el EZLN vienen construyendo sus ideas sobre autonomía funciona como vehículo para sus críticas a la imposición de control por parte del Estado, llevando ese último a percibir las inconsistencias de sus propios principios y del trato que da a los pueblos indígenas.Palabras-clave: Autonomía Indígena, Pensamiento Político, Autodeterminación, Movimiento Indígena.Indigenous autonomy in the political thought of Taiaiake Alfred, Floriberto Díaz, Gersem Baniwa and in the EZLN proposalsAbstract: Over the last 30 years, autonomy has become a new paradigm in the struggle of indigenous peoples for decolonization. Indigenous organizations throughout the Americas assumed autonomy as a central demand. However, the debate over indigenous demands for autonomy has generated many controversies which were derived from the misunderstanding of what indigenous movements want when they claim their right to self-determination and autonomy. To better understand this question, we are interested here in bringing up some elements and concepts that make it possible to appreciate the contributions of three indigenous intellectuals to that debate: Taiaiake Alfred, mohawk from Canada; Floriberto Diaz, mixe of Tlahuitoltepec and Gersem Baniwa, from the Baniwa people of the Alto Rio Negro and of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) proposals. We will see that the way these intellectuals and the EZLN construct their ideas about autonomy functions as a vehicle for their criticism of the imposition of control by the State, leading the latter to perceive the inconsistencies of its own principles and the treatment it gives to indigenous peoples.Keywords: Indigenous Autonomy, Political Thought, Self-Determination, Indigenous Movement.


Author(s):  
Frederik Harhoff

SommaireL'autodétermination des peuples autochtones suscite la controverse en droit international contemporain depuis que le processus de décolonisation s'est achevé, à la fin des années 1960. Parce qu’ils craignaient avant tout des désordres nationaux, de nombreux pays ont refusé de reconnaître que les peuples autochtones ont le droit de se séparer du territoire national et d'obtenir leur indépendance. Cependant, même la reconnaissance d'un droit moins vaste, soit un droit de recevoir un statut spécial et d'obtenir l'autonomie politique dans le cadre des frontières étatiques existantes, demeure une question litigieuse, car aucune définition claire des bénéficiaires et de la substance de ces droits ne peut être établie. De toute façon, la disparité des conditions politiques, économiques, sociales et climatiques dans lesquelles vivent les peuples autochtones du monde entier rend futile la création d'un seul et unique concept d'autodétermination qui s'appliquerait au monde entier. Pour sortir de cette impasse, on propose d'adopter une approche procédurale, au lieu d'essayer de fixer ces questions dans des termes juridiques stricts.Le fait de qualifier le concept d'autodétermination de processus, au lieu de le décrire comme étant une série de règles exactes et préétablies, a pour avantage d'apporter un élément de flexibilité, car il permet aux deux parties, c'est-à-dire les États et les peuples autochtones, de trouver des appuis pour défendre leurs intérêts et d'imaginer une solution viable qui tienne compte des circonstances particulières de chaque cas. Mais toutes les parties concernées devraient tout d'abord accepter trois conditions préalables:(1) Le droit de sécession immédiate et d'indépendance complète, en tant qu'aspect du droit à l'autodétermination, devrait être réservé aux peuples autochtones des territoires d'outre-mer.(2) Les États ont le devoir de favoriser l'autonomie de leurs peuples autochtones et le fardeau de prouver qu 'ih offrent la plus grande autonomie possible aux peuples autochtones vivant sur leurs territoires.(3) Une fois que des ententes relatives à l'autonomie ont été conclues, les États ne peuvent pas les révoquer, les abréger ou les modifier unilatéralement.L'auteur de cette note examine ensuite le régime d'autonomie du Groenland et conclut que ce régime semble satisfaire aux critères énoncés, bien que la question du statut actuel du Groenland (et des îles Faroe) au sein du royaume danois demeure incertaine sur le plan constitutionnel. Le régime d'autonomie implique un transfert irrévocable des pouvoirs législatifs et administratifs des autorités danoùes aux autorités du Groenland, ce qui a pour effet de créer un régime juridique indépendant au Groenland. Par ailleurs, il est entendu que le régime d'autonomie du Groenland permet d'établir un système judiciaire indépendant, si les tribunaux danois du Groenland ne reconnaissent pas la validité de la Loi d'autonomie du Groenland.


Author(s):  
Hohmann Jessie

This chapter focuses on the rights to identity, existence, and non-assimilation in Articles 7(2), 8, and 43, which together enshrine rights to the protection of indigenous peoples' continued survival and existence, both physically as individuals and as cultural entities in accordance with levels of human dignity and well-being. Indigenous peoples pressed for the inclusion of such principles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the recognition that pre-existing international, regional, and national laws had failed to protect their survival as communities with distinct cultures, or recognise them as distinct peoples. The three provisions studied in this chapter reflect this central concern of indigenous group/cultural survival and flourishing as peoples. As such, the final agreed text of Articles 7(2), 8, and 43 must be seen as containing norms aimed at the development of existing international law, which would protect and confirm indigenous collectivities in ways not currently recognised or only now emerging.


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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova

AbstractEven though self-determination of peoples has an esteemed place in international law, it seems fairly clear that peoples divided by international borders have difficulty in exercising their right to self-determination. It is thus interesting to examine whether general international law places constraints on trans-national peoples’ right to self-determination. Of particular interest in this article is to examine whether indigenous peoples divided by international borders have a right to self-determination, given the recent adoption of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The article will also take up cases where transnational indigenous peoples of Sami and Inuit have tried to exercise their joint self-determination and whether we can, in fact, argue that indigenous peoples divided by international borders have a right to exercise their united self-determination.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prosper Nobirabo Musafiri

The problem of the concept of the right to self-determination under international human rights is that it is vague and imprecise. It has, at the same time, generated controversy as it leaves space for multiple interpretations in relevant international legal instruments. This paper examines if indigenous people and minority groups are eligible to the right to self-determination. If so, what is the appropriate interpretation of such right, in light of indigenous/minority groups at national as well as the international level?


2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Barelli

AbstractThe right of peoples to self-determination represents one of the most controversial norms of international law. In particular, two questions connected with the meaning and scope of this right have been traditionally contentious: first, who constitutes a ‘people’ for the purposes of self-determination, and, secondly, what does the right of self-determination actually imply for its legitimate holders. Against this unsettled background, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirmed, in a straightforward manner, that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In light of the uncertainties that were mentioned above, it becomes necessary to clarify the actual implications of this important recognition. This article will seek to do so by discussing the drafting history of the provision on self-determination contained in the UNDRIP and positioning it within the broader normative framework of the instrument.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document