ILO Convention 169

Vestas was to start delivering 132 V90-3.0 megawatt (MW) turbines in the second quarter of 2012. The turbines were to be installed in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, a southern state in Mexico. However, on 17 October 2012, Vestas’s deliveries were put on hold when social organisations and 40 indigenous Zapotec and Huave people held rallies in front of the Danish Embassy in Mexico City. With banners and placards, the protestors demanded Vestas’s exit from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The indigenous people suggested that although European companies had traditionally been present in Mexico and were among the most experienced wind developers in the world, “their capitalist model” failed to take into account, “the spiritual and social ties between the indigenous rural communities and the land”. According to local residents, the basic problem was a clash of cultures.
This case can be analysed taking into consideration different perspectives, such as: 1) social movements, 2) development, 3) business models, 4) international business, 5) institutions and governance, and 6) corporate social responsibility. An additional angel that could be considered is the communication process and stakeholder involvement between MNCs, governmental officials and local communities, when implementing large-scale investment projects.
The case presents a conflict which involves four actors: 1) Indigenous communities in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region in Oaxaca, Mexico: Zapotecas, Huaves or Ikoot, 2) The Mexican Government 3) VESTAS, and 4) Mareña Renovables.

¿Qué tan sencillo ha sido para el Viceministerio de Interculturalidad del Ministerio de Cultura del Perú (VMI) cumplir con el encargo de la agenda indígena en materia de consulta previa? ¿Cuál es la situación en el interior del Ejecutivo respecto al tema? ¿Cómo ha lidiado el VMI con la oposición de los sectores empresariales y el cuestionamiento de las organizaciones indígenas?

In a world of competing flag States and short-term employment, enjoying the benefits provided by a social security system is a difficult, if not impossible, task for many seafarers. The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, has abandoned the flag State principle in favour of the residence principle for that reason. This article addresses the implementation challenges of this approach by examining the European Union case, and highlights the advantages of the residence principle in terms of administrative efficiency and effectiveness, enhanced coordination between social security contributions and personal income tax in cross-border situations, and better use of State aid measures.

Who is indigenous is a question which is often difficult to answer from the perspective of non-indigenous law. Lovelace v. Canada is one of the key cases of indigenous rights law. It forms an important precedent but it does not establish an unlimited subjective right to be indigenous within the framework of the ICCPR. The decision in Lovelace v. Canada cannot be construed as requiring states which are parties to the ICCPR to allow anybody to claim indigenous identity without the consent of the indigenous people in question. ILO 169 strengthens the position of indigenous peoples in this regard. Selfidentification has multiple dimensions: collective self-identification as indigenous, individual self-identification as indigenous, and collective identification of the self through the identification of an individual as indigenous. Only indigenous peoples can decide who is a member. This decision is a sovereign right of the collective.

Guatemala’s neoliberal turn in the 1990s was heralded as an emergence from a 34- year long civil war marked by genocidal counterinsurgency campaigns to a new order of peaceful development, multiculturalism and a singular rule of law. However, Postwar Guatemala has instead witnessed new forms of violence in the highly destructive megaprojects brought by transnational capital as well as the emergence of the massive indigenous Moviemento Maya (Mayan Movement) that contests these projects, claiming they violate Mayan law and their rights to territorial sovereignty. The Marlin Mine, an open pit gold mine located between the municipalities of San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa in the Western Highlands of Guatemala, is one such site of conflict between the interests of extractive industry on the one hand and on these emergent claims to collective indigenous rights the other.
Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, this thesis contextualizes, historicizes and critically analyzes the emergence and constitution this collective indigenous subject of rights within Guatemala’s ongoing colonial history. Turning to the place of indigenous people in national and international law, this thesis explores how claims to sovereignty and law both constitute a Mayan subject and serve to contest the Marlin Mine and the operation of neoliberal forms of power more generally. By examining these counter-hegemonic uses of law, I argue against an instrumental conception of the relationship between the Sovereign and Law. I argue instead that Law isn’t something wielded by a Sovereign power, nor is it ever singular, but instead that sovereignty is a legal fiction, an aspirational claim that is made and legitimated through numerous overlapping legal orders and that only takes on reality through micro-contextual practices of recognition. Turning to these micro-contextual practices of recognition, I leave the international courtrooms behind to examine the lived spaces of legal contestation around the mine, from the indigenous authorities who meet in the Casa Del Pueblo to the (legal) blockades demanding access to clean water.

La lutte pour la recomposition du Peuple Charrúa et le recouvrement graduel de leur souveraineté en Uruguay s’est organisée depuis 1987 par l’entremise d’institutions étatiques et paraétatiques favorisant une rencontre entre acteurs autochtones et, de là, une prise de conscience de leur histoire partagée. La mobilisation d’un cadre législatif et institutionnel créé pour les victimes de la dictature et pour les afrodescendants, qui a eu pour effet de les reléguer sur le plan national à des outils rattachés aux droits de l’Homme et des minorités ethniques, s’est avérée décisive pour l’obtention de ressources leur permettant d’accéder aux espaces autochtones régionaux et internationaux. Ce cheminement les mène autour de 2005 à s’affirmer non plus comme « descendants » autochtones, mais plutôt comme Charrúas et à réclamer les droits collectifs qui leur correspondent principalement par la création du Conseil de la Nation Charrúa, une organisation fédérant plus de 8 communautés à travers le territoire. Par celle-ci, les Charrúas s’activent surtout pour la reconnaissance du génocide vécu par leurs familles et de leur présence continue ainsi que pour la ratification de la Convention 169 de l’OIT par laquelle ils espèrent que l’État uruguayen fournisse un cadre législatif où exprimer leurs doléances et obtenir réparation. Il s’agit d’une voie qu’ils considèrent importante, mais non déterminante pour se recomposer et résurgir comme Peuple Charrúa.

The Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopia make up a significant proportion
of the country’s estimated population of 110 million.
Around 15% are pastoralists and sedentary farmers who live
across the country but particularly in the Ethiopian lowlands,
which constitute some 61% of the country’s total landmass.
There are also several hunter-gatherer communities, including
the forest-dwelling Majang (Majengir) and Anuak peoples, who
live in the Gambella region.
Ethiopia is believed to have the largest livestock population
in Africa, a significant number of which are in the hands
of pastoralist communities living on land that, in recent years,
has been under high demand from foreign investors. Such
“land grabbing” has only emphasized the already tenuous political
and economic situation of Indigenous Peoples in Ethiopia.
Indigenous Peoples’ access to healthcare provision and to
primary and secondary education remains highly inadequate.
According to the 1995 Ethiopian Constitution, land is
owned by the State and the peoples of Ethiopia and cannot be
sold and exchanged. The Constitution guarantees the rights
of pastoralists to free land for grazing and cultivation as well
as the right not to be displaced from their own lands. The implementation
of these constitutional provisions is to be determined
by law. There is no national legislation protecting Indigenous
Peoples, and Ethiopia has neither ratified ILO Convention
169 nor was it present during the voting on the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Political uncertainty
and natural calamities in Ethiopia in recent years have
compounded the problems that Indigenous Peoples face there.

A un año de la aprobación de la Ley de Consulta Previa, se han realizado varios análisis sobre este proceso político que hacen hincapié en la prontitud con la que se aprobó en los primeros meses del gobierno actual. No obstante, dicho proceso acelerado demandó un diseño legal e institucional que, a pesar recibir duras críticas por una fuerte desconfianza de las organizaciones indígenas con el Estado en diferentes escenarios posibles, ha sido adoptado y aceptado pragmáticamente por el Gobierno y las organizaciones indígenas con el anuncio del primer proceso de
consulta previa. El presente artículo recoge esta problemática analizando el proceso de aprobación y reglamentación de la Consulta Previa, enmarcada en las relaciones entre el Estado y los pueblos indígenas, así como los desafíos del diseño institucional que este proceso demanda.

The Asian Development Bank claims that, from 2009 onwards, food security is a major focus of their support and assistance in India and the rest of Asia.  This analysis of their overall approach and projects in India indicates that their support may in fact exacerbate the problems that have led to the ongoing food crisis in this area.

This paper discusses the interaction between International Law and the descendants of the pre-colonial populations of the colonial territories, particularly with those now identified as indigenous peoples. From the framework provided by the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), its first part shows the very idea of indigenousness as a product of the colonial encounter, which worked aligned with the imperialist project and its civilizing mission. Then, the paper analyses both ILO Convention N° 107 and N° 169 to unveil how the language of (human) rights within the framework of International Law has operated asserting the state's sovereignty in detriment of the self-determination of indigenous peoples. Then, it revises the most progressive developments in international Law regarding indigenous peoples rights, namely, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the decisions of the UN's Human Rights Committee, to find out how the idea of indigenousness operates as an obstacle for indigenous self-determination. It concludes asserting the value of UN's Declaration on Indigenous Rights. International Law emerged in the process of expansion of the world-system. Its first historical task was to give an account of the colonial encounter (Anghie, 2004). This meant to address the question of the status of the inhabitants of the newly discovered lands and their authorities (Kennedy, 1986). Francisco de Vitoria opens the play by recognizing the human character of the others. Consequently, he assigned them the rights and duties which correspond to any living being endowed with reason, to wit, those stemming from natural law. 1 In a convenient manner, natural law was fulfilled with the practices of the colonizers (i. e. travelling, sojourning, commercing) (Anghie, 2004). Since any breach of natural obligations had to be punished, resistance became a crime under the jus gentium (Cirkovic, 2007). In this way, the recognition of Indian's humanity in International Law-while operating as a redemption of the Indians-played at the same time as an early justification of imperialism. Centuries have passed and the colonial subject forged within this relation of power is still there. It has walked through different forms of resistance, from the first armed response, to several uprights, and various forms of legal and political participation. In the last decades indigenous peoples' claims and the indigenous movement itself, have found they way into the international forum in which they have been struggling for recognition (Eide, 2009). From the initial concerns of the UN agencies in the early seventies, to the revision of the terms of the ILO Convention N° 107 (which ends with the adoption of ILO Convention N° 169 in the late eighties) and the proclamation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly in 2007, several international decisions, instruments and institutions have addressed the issue of indigenous peoples status and rights. The itinerary that can * Matías Meza-Lopehandía has a law degree from University of Chile. At the present time is coursing a MSc in Human Rights in London School of Economics and Political Science. This paper is part of the work in progress of his dissertation. Contact: m.a.meza-lopehandia@lse.ac.uk 1 Vitoria rejected the traditional approach that linked rights to (catholic) faith. Instead, he stated 'the inapplicability of divine law to questions of ownership, [in consequence] the Indians cannot be deprived of their lands merely by virtue of their status as unbelievers or heretics ' (Angie, 2004: 18). He also considered Indians as humans that were governed by a coherent political system. As beings endowed with reason, Indians were bound by jus gentium (natural law).

Since 2005, more than 78 Maya communities representing approximately one million Guatemalans have held referendums called consultas comunitarias, which ask the community whether they are in agreement with mineral, hydroelectric, and/or other megaprojects in their traditional territory. Participation in the consultas is a form of resistance to the granting of mineral rights to corporate interests. In Canada, where much of the Guatemalan mining investment is based, “socially responsible investment firms” (SRIs) promote corporate respect for Indigenous rights. Based on interviews and participant observation, we highlight the perspectives of Maya consulta organizers in three communities that have undertaken consultas to resist the mining licenses of the Canadian mining company Goldcorp, Inc. We argue that a strict policy of corporate respect for the right to free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities is a minimum requirement for Maya acceptance of SRI legitimacy.

As of 2017, the Indigenous Peoples of Malaysia were estimated
to account for around 13.8% of the 31,660,700 million national
population. They are collectively known as Orang Asal. The
Orang Asli are the Indigenous Peoples of Peninsular Malaysia.
The 18 Orang Asli subgroups within the Negrito (Semang), Senoi
and Aboriginal-Malay groups account for 0.7% of the population
of Peninsular Malaysia (31,950,000). In Sarawak, the
Indigenous Peoples are collectively known as natives (Dayak
and/or Orang Ulu). They include the Iban, Bidayuh, Kenyah,
Kayan, Kedayan, Lunbawang, Punan, Bisayah, Kelabit, Berawan,
Kejaman, Ukit, Sekapan, Melanau and Penan. They constitute
around 1,932,600 or 70.5% of Sarawak’s population of 2,707,600
people. In Sabah, the 39 different Indigenous ethnic groups are
known as natives or Anak Negeri and make up some 2,233,100
or 58.6% of Sabah’s population of 3,813,200. The main groups
are the Dusun, Murut, Paitan and Bajau groups. While the Malays
are also Indigenous to Malaysia, they are not categorised
as Indigenous Peoples because they constitute the majority
and are politically, economically and socially dominant.
In Sarawak and Sabah, laws introduced by the British during
their colonial rule recognising the customary land rights and
customary law of the Indigenous Peoples are still in place. However,
they are not properly implemented, and are even outright
ignored by the government, which gives priority to large-scale
resource extraction and the plantations of private companies
and state agencies over the rights and interests of the Indigenous
communities. In Peninsular Malaysia, while there is a clear
lack of reference to Orang Asli customary land rights in the National
Land Code, Orang Asli customary tenure is recognised
under common law. The principal act that governs Orang Asli
administration, including occupation of the land, is the Aboriginal
Peoples Act 1954.
Malaysia has adopted the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and endorsed the
Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous
Peoples but has not ratified ILO Convention 169.

According to figures from the 2018 census, Guatemala has a population of 14.9 million inhabitants, 6.5 million (43.75%) of which self-identify as Indigenous, from the Maya, Garífuna and Xinca Indigenous Peoples, or Creole (Afrodescendants). The Maya can be further divided into 24 groups: the Achi’, Akateco, Awakateco, Chalchiteco, Ch’orti’, Chuj, Itza’, Ixil, Jacalteco, Kaqchikel, K’iche’, Mam, Mopan, Poqomam, Poqomchi’, Q’an- job’al, Q’eqchi’, Sakapulteco, Sipakapense, Tektiteko, Tz’utujil and Uspanteko. Data from the census and from other special- ist studies shows the deep inequalities that continue to exist between Indigenous and non-indigenous people, above all with regard to health, education, work and income, these inequalities being even greater when it comes to Indigenous women.
The socio-economic situation of Indigenous people in Guatemala continues to show deep inequalities due to structural problems such as social exclusion, racism and dispossession of their livelihoods, all of which places them in a situation of poverty or extreme poverty. Poverty affects 75% of Indigenous and 36% of non-indigenous people,1 while chronic malnutrition affects 58% of Indigenous and 38% of non-indigenous people.2 The Constitution of the Republic does not recognise either the existence of Indigenous Peoples or the multicultural composition of society. The country has ratified UN agreements on Indigenous Peoples such as: ILO Convention 169 (which the Constitutional Court elevated to constitutional status in 2010, forcing the country to recognise Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including the right to prior consultation), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the FAO policy on Indigenous and tribal peoples. In practice, however, exclusion is prevalent, for example, in the national media, which prioritises Spanish as the official language while Indigenous languages have limited cover solely in the local media.

Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has been a self-governing country within the Danish Realm since 1979. The population is 88% Greenlandic Inuit out of a total of 56,225 inhabitants (July 2019).
The majority of Greenlandic Inuit refer to themselves as Kalaallit.
Ethnographically, they consist of three major groups: the Kalaallit of West Greenland, who speak Kalaallisut; the Tunumi- it of Tunu (East Greenland), who speak Tunumiit oraasiat (East Greenlandic) and the Inughuit/Avanersuarmiut of the north. The majority of the people of Greenland speak the Inuit language, Kalaallisut, which is the official language, while the second lan- guage of the country is Danish.
Greenland’s diverse culture includes subsistence hunting, commercial fisheries, tourism and emerging efforts to devel- op the oil and mining industries. Approximately 50% of the na- tional budget is financed by Denmark through a block grant. In 2009, Greenland entered into a new era with the inauguration of its Act on Self-Government, which gave the country further self-determination within the Kingdom of Denmark. Together with the Danish Constitution, the Self-Government Act articulates Greenland’s constitutional position in the Kingdom of Denmark. The Self-Government Act recognises the Greenlan- dic people as a people under international law with the right to self-determination. Greenland has a public government and it aims to establish a sustainable economy in order to achieve greater independence.
Greenland’s self-government consists of the Inatsisar- tut (Parliament), which is the elected legislature, and the Naalakkersuisut (Government), which is responsible for overall public administration, thereby forming the executive branch. The Inatsisartut has 31 elected members. The Government of Greenland adopted the UNDRIP upon its ratification in 2007 and subsequent governments have committed to its implementation. Greenland and Denmark jointly prepare reports regarding good practice on implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, as described in the UNDRIP and other international human rights instruments. The Government of Greenland had a decisive influence over the Kingdom of Denmark’s ratification of ILO Convention 169 in 1996, as Greenland has prioritised actions to establish the Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to land and resources in their territories.

Since 1997, the Mexican government has founded in the province of Quintana Roo a traditional style of justice instituted on a previous indigenous Mayan traditional legal system. This article provides a reflection about the way the Mayan justice has been recognized and implemented in the state of Quintana Roo, based on the incorporation of the rights derived from the ILO Convention 169 signed by Mexico in the last century. Mexico possesses and recognizes the Mayan legal system, but with some additions which causes the existence of two different structures the traditional and the new one which coexist in the same social field at the same time.

The Amazigh (Berber) peoples are the Indigenous Peoples
of North Africa. The last census in Morocco (2016) estimated
the number of Tamazight speakers at 28% of the population.
However, Amazigh associations strongly contest it and instead
claim a rate of 65 to 70%. This means that the Amazigh-speaking
population could well number around 20 million in Morocco
and around 30 million throughout North Africa and the Sahel
as a whole.
The Amazigh people founded an organization called
“Amazigh Cultural Movement” (MCA) to defend their rights. It is
a civil society movement based on the universal values of human
rights. Today there are more than 800 Amazigh associations
established throughout Morocco.
The administrative and legal system of Morocco has
been strongly Arabized, and the Amazigh culture and way of
life are under constant pressure to assimilate. Morocco has for
many years been a unitary state with centralized authority, a
single religion, a single language and a systematic marginalization
of all aspects of the Amazigh identity. The 2011 Constitution
officially recognizes the Amazigh identity and language.
This could be a very positive and encouraging step for the
Amazigh people of Morocco. The parliament finally adopted in
2019 the organic law for the implementation of article 5 of the
constitution, after several years of waiting. Work to harmonize
the legal arsenal with the new Constitution should begin.
Morocco has not ratified ILO Convention 169 and has not
voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.

Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has been a self-governing country
within the Danish Realm since 1979. The population is 88%
Greenlandic Inuit with a total of 56,367 inhabitants (July 2020).
The majority of Greenlandic Inuit refer to themselves as Kalaallit.
Ethnographically, they consist of three major groups: the
Kalaallit of West Greenland, who speak Kalaallisut; the Tunumiit
of Tunu (East Greenland), who speak Tunumiit oraasiat (East
Greenlandic) and the Inughuit/Avanersuarmiut of the north. The
majority of the people of Greenland speak the Inuit language,
Kalaallisut, which is the official language, while the second language
of the country is Danish.
Greenland’s diverse culture includes subsistence hunting,
commercial fisheries, tourism and emerging efforts to develop
the oil and mining industries. Approximately 50% of the national
budget is financed by Denmark through a block grant. In
2009, Greenland entered into a new era with the inauguration
of its Act on Self-Government, which gave the country further
self-determination within the Kingdom of Denmark. Together
with the Danish Constitution, the Self-Government Act articulates
Greenland’s constitutional position in the Kingdom of
Denmark. The Self-Government Act recognises the Greenlandic
people as a people under international law with the right to
self-determination. Greenland has a public government and it
aims to establish a sustainable economy in order to achieve
greater independence.
Greenland’s self-government consists of the Inatsisartut
(Parliament), which is the elected legislature, and the
Naalakkersuisut (Government), which is responsible for overall
public administration, thereby forming the executive branch.
The Inatsisartut has 31 elected members. The Government of
Greenland adopted the UNDRIP upon its ratification in 2007
and subsequent governments have committed to its implementation.
Greenland and Denmark jointly prepare reports regarding
good practice on implementation of Indigenous Peoples’
rights, as described in the UNDRIP and other international
human rights instruments. The Government of Greenland had a decisive influence over the Kingdom of Denmark’s ratification
of ILO Convention 169 in 1996, as Greenland has prioritised actions
to establish the Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to
land and resources in their territories.

According to the 2011 Census, the Indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) of Nepal make up 36% of the total population of 29.8 million, although Indigenous Peoples’ organisations claim a larger figure of more than 50%. The 2011 Census listed the population as belonging to 125 caste and ethnic groups, including 63 Indigenous Peoples; 59 castes, including 15 Dalit castes; and three religious groups, including Muslim groups.
Although Indigenous Peoples constitute a significant proportion of the population, throughout Nepal’s history, they have been discriminated, marginalised, excluded, subjugated, dominated, exploited and internally colonised by the dominant caste groups in terms of land, territories, resources, language, culture, customary laws, political and economic opportunities, and their collective way of life.
The new Constitution of Nepal, promulgated in 2015, denies Indigenous Peoples their collective rights and aspirations for identity-based federalism, despite the fact that Nepal has ratified ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and passed both the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples’ (WCIP) Outcome Document. Their implementation is still lacking however. Recent amendments to laws and draft bills are not in line with the UNDRIP or ILO C169. The Nepalese government has shown no sign of implementing the recommendations, including that of amending the constitution to explicitly recognise the right to self-determination and all Indigenous women’s rights in line with the UNDRIP, as outlined by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Latin Amerika farklı etnik köken ve karışık ırk yapısı ile dünya üzerinde önemli çeşitliliğe sahip bölgelerden biridir. Meksika'dan Tierra Del Fuego'ya kadar eşsiz kültürel mirasa sahip birçok yerli halk yaşamını sürdürmektedir. Yerli halklar 16. yüzyılın başında bölgeye gelen İber Yarımadalı güçlerle karşılaştıkları andan itibaren hep ezilen, sömürülen, yoksulluğa sürüklenen, asimile edilmek istenilen dezavantajlı ve savunmasız halklar olarak tanımlanıyordu. Çünkü içinde yaşadıkları toplumlarınkinden farklı kültürel, sosyal, ekonomik, politik özelliklere sahiplerdi ve kabul görmüyorlardı. Kimliklerinin, yaşam biçimlerinin korunmasını; geleneksel topraklara, bölgelere ve doğal kaynaklara yıllarca sahip olma haklarının tanınmasını istediler. İsteklerini ve hedeflerini gerçekleştirebilmek için entegrasyona başvurmak durumundaydılar. Bu bağlamda 20. yüzyıl ortalarından itibaren birçok yerli örgütü kurdular. Bugün bu halklar oluşturdukları entegrasyon örnekleri ile hem sınırları içinde bulundukları ulus devletlerde hem de uluslararası forumlarda taleplerini büyük bir güç ve kararlılıkla artırmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Ecuador’s Indigenous population accounts for close to 1.1 mil- lion people out of a total population of more than 17,300,000. There are 14 Indigenous nationalities living in the country, grouped into different local, regional and national organisations. Some 24.1% of the Indigenous population live in the Amazon and belong to 10 nationalities; 7.3% of the Andean Kichwa live in the southern Sierra; and 8.3% live along the coast and in the Galapagos Islands.
The remaining 60.3%, comprising Andean Kichwa, live in six provinces of the central-north Sierra; 78.5% of them still live in rural areas and 21.5% live in the towns and cities. The Shuar, a nationality of more than 100,000 people, have a strong presence in three provinces of the central south Amazon, where they represent between 8% and up to 79% of the total population. The rest are dispersed in small groups across the country.
There are a number of nationalities with very low populations and which are thus in a highly vulnerable position. In the Amazon these are the A’i Cofán (1,485 inhabitants); the Shiwiar (1,198 inhabitants); the Siekopai (689 inhabitants); the Siona (611 inhabitants); and the Sapara (559 inhabitants); on the coast, there are the Épera (546 inhabitants) and the Manta (311 inhabitants). After more than a decade of a new Constitution and 20 years after ratifying ILO Convention 169, Ecuador still lacks specific and clear public policies that could prevent or mitigate the risk of these peoples disappearing, together with effective instruments that would ensure the enforcement of collective rights that are already widely recognised in the current Constitution.

En el artículo se realiza una investigación sobre la relación que el Estado de Chile mantiene con los pueblos originarios andinos, sobre el uso compartido del agua, desde una perspectiva jurídica y social. Así las cosas, considero importante establecer que, a nuestro juicio, no se han implementado verdaderas políticas públicas que apunten a responder a las necesidades de reconoci-miento de la posesión ancestral de las aguas de los pueblos indígenas. Dicha postura se sostiene en los siguientes puntos: 1) la Constitución Política de la República de Chile no contiene un verdadero reconocimiento de su carácter intercultural, lo que en la práctica facilita que en la instauración de políticas públicas se transgreda el derecho de la identidad cultural de los pueblos indígenas en Chile. 2) En América Latina, las "culturas de aguas" forman parte del uso y manejo racional del agua y en Chile no se tiene una verdadera claridad conceptual sobre el alcance de estos usos consuetudinarios 3) El uso consuetudinario del agua por los pueblos indígenas del desierto de Atacama ha sido reconocido como un ejercicio de derecho propio de pueblos indígenas en Chile, tanto a nivel de la doctrina como la jurisprudencia nacional e internacional. Palabras claves: Derecho al agua en Chile, Convenio Nº 169 de la OIT, Pueblos Indígenas. This article is an investigation that contributes to the study of my discipline on the delimitation of the relationship that the State of Chile has maintained with the Andean native peoples, on the shared use of water, from a legal and social perspective. Thus, I consider it important to establish that, in our opinion, true public policies that aim to respond to the needs for recognition of the ancestral possession of the waters of indigenous peoples have not been implemented. This position is supported by the following points: 1) the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile does not contain a true recognition of its intercultural character, which in practice facilitates that in the establishment of public policies the right of cultural identity of indigenous peoples in Chile is violated. 2) In Latin America, "water cultures" are part of the rational use and management of water and in Chile there is no real conceptual clarity about the scope of these customary uses. 3) The customary use of water by the indigenous peoples of the the Atacama Desert has been recognized as an exercise of the right of indigenous peoples in Chile, by both national and international doctrine and jurisprudence. Introducción En este trabajo se presentan algunos conceptos correspondientes a la cosmovisión indígena andina del desierto de Atacama que, buscan hacer una necesaria defensa de la "cultura del agua" de los pueblos indígenas, como manifestación del derecho consuetudinario indígena. Presentando esta como parte del necesario reconocimiento intercultural que debe realizar un Estado nacional de América Latina que, se denomina social de derecho. En esta línea se comprende que, en Chile coexisten varios sistemas jurídicos, el impuesto por el Estado nacional y el propio indígena, esto a su vez, podría implicar el derecho de los mismos indígenas a auto determinar su uso del agua, y ello debe manifestarse por medio del establecimiento de políticas públicas de cuidado de esta en Chile. En la base de ello nos enfrentamos a un problema mayor que, dice relación con los efectos irracionales del derecho en las comunidades ancestrales, sobre todo de un derecho hegemónico que, en la práctica y en su ejecución no reconoce las reglas de control social derivadas de la costumbre indígena.

This chapter presents the current situation of indigenous peoples and Sate law management of water resources in Chile. Put it in perspective, indigenous peoples are one of the most disadvantaged groups that have suffered from historical, cultural, political, and economic oppression. Seen against this background, the fact that water laws have not considered their interests should not surprise anyone. By encouraging a neoliberal approach, water rights have been commodified and sold to best offer. As markets create spaces to enhance the private interest of concurring parties, few other interests have received legal protection.
Whereas indigenous peoples’ interests have received little attention from the legislative process, other opportunities have emerged. Since Chile ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 169, some indigenous communities have sought to advance their interest by means of legal mobilization. As it will be argued below, although courts have been more open in welcoming indigenous peoples’ arguments and interests, there are few reasons to expect any larger change coming from that arena.

This article explores the relationship between indigenous rights, international standards, and development in Latin America with a specific focus on ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples and its application in the region. Whereas, on the one hand, democratic change, constitutional reforms and the recognition of indigenous peoples signal the emergence of a new rights era, on the other hand, deep-running inequalities, persistent poverty and development conflicts reveal structural tensions and the ambiguities of recognition. While such ambiguity is often explained as a consequence of poor implementation and compromised rights standards, this article analyses trends in both orthodox and heterodox polities as well as in the international arena in order to draw further attention to how rights regimes are being renegotiated. Rights under this ‘new jungle law’ are no longer characterised by neglect and poor implementation, but through reappropriation, strategic attention and regulatory negotiations, revealing a sliding scale of potentialities between empowerment and normalisation.

According to the 2007 Census, there are more than 4 million
Indigenous people in Peru: 83.11% are Quechua, 10.92% Aymara,
1.67% Asháninka and 4.31% belong to other Amazonian Indigenous
Peoples. The Indigenous or Native Peoples Database
(BDPI) reports the existence of 55 Indigenous Peoples in the
country speaking 47 Indigenous languages.
On the other hand, 21% of the national territory is covered
by mining concessions, and these overlap with 47.8% of the
territory of the peasant communities. Furthermore, 75% of the
Peruvian Amazon is covered by hydrocarbon concessions. The
overlapping of rights to communal territories, the enormous
pressure from the extractive industries, the absence of landuse
planning and the lack of any effective implementation of
prior consultation are all exacerbating territorial and socio-environmental
conflicts in Peru, a country that has signed and
ratified Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization
(ILO) and which voted in favour of the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

The national census was scheduled to take place in 2020 but,
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it had to be postponed. The figure
for the Panamanian population is therefore frozen in time
at 3.41 million inhabitants, of which 417,5592 (12.28%) are Indigenous.
The Dule, Embera, Wounaan, Ngäbe, Bugle, Naso Tjër Di
and Bri Bri Indigenous Peoples are all members of and participate
in the umbrella organization the National Coordinating
Body of Indigenous Peoples of Panama (COONAPIP). This year,
the 124 congresses and councils were further consolidated
within the Vice-Ministry of Indigenous Affairs under the Ministry
of the Interior. Everyone therefore had a place in the National
Council for the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous
Peoples.
After more than 40 years of struggle and demands for
their ancestral lands, the Naso Tjër Di this year achieved a certain
degree of autonomy and recognition of their political-administrative
division by adding one more comarca.
Panama has not yet ratified ILO Convention 169 but did
vote in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples.

South Africa’s total population is estimated at around 50 million people, and Indigenous groups make up approximately 1% of this figure. Collectively, the various African Indigenous communities in South Africa are known as the Khoe-San/Khoisan, comprised of the San and the Khoekhoe/Khoi-Khoi. The main San groups include the Khomani San who mainly reside in the Kalahari region, and the Khwe and Xun mainly in Platfontein, Kimberley. The main Khoi-Khoi groups consist of the following: the Nama who live primarily in the Northern Cape Province; the Koranna who live mainly in the Kimberley Free State province and some parts of Western Cape; the Griqua in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Free State and Kwa- Zulu-Natal provinces; and the Cape Khoekhoe in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape, with growing pockets in the Gauteng and Free State provinces. In contemporary South Africa, Khoikhoi and San communities are engaged in a range of unique socio-economic and cultural lifestyles and practices.
The socio-political changes brought about by the current South African regime have begun deconstructing the racial categories of the Apartheid system. Previously, many members of the Khoikhoi and San communities were classified as “Coloured”, a misnomer that grouped together multiracial ethnic groups. Many “Coloured” people are now exercising their right to self-identification by identifying themselves as San and Khoi-Khoi or Khoe-San. Self-identification amongst Indigenous groups is a right entrenched in Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which South Africa is in favour of adopting. However, the country has yet to ratify the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO Convention No. 169), which is the major binding international convention concerning Indigenous and tribal peoples and was a precursor to the UNDRIP.

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 Member States established in 1951. Its legislative and executive powers are divided between the EU’s three main institutions: the European Parliament (co-legislative authority EP), the Council of the European Union (co-legislative and executive authority - CoEU) and the European Commission (executive authority EC). In addition, the EU has its own diplomatic service: the European External Action Service (with EU “embassies” throughout the world).
The EU has influence within the territory of its Member States but  also a global impact as an international key player, notably on human rights, development and environment issues.
In this sense, “While internal competences concern the European Union’s internal functioning, external competences are those that fall within the framework of the EU’s relations and partnerships with non-EU countries and international, regional or global organisations.”
The EU is part of the international process of promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since 1996, four EU Member States have ratified the ILO Convention No 169, all EU Member States have signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, and the EU has contributed to and supported the Outcome Document of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014.

Vestas was to start delivering 132 V90-3.0 megawatt (MW) turbines in the second quarter of 2012. The turbines were to be installed in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, a southern state in Mexico. However, on 17 October 2012, Vestas’s deliveries were put on hold when social organisations and 40 indigenous Zapotec and Huave people held rallies in front of the Danish Embassy in Mexico City. With banners and placards, the protestors demanded Vestas’s exit from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The indigenous people suggested that although European companies had traditionally been present in Mexico and were among the most experienced wind developers in the world, “their capitalist model” failed to take into account, “the spiritual and social ties between the indigenous rural communities and the land”. According to local residents, the basic problem was a clash of cultures. This case can be analysed taking into consideration different perspectives, such as: 1) social movements, 2) development, 3) business models, 4) international business, 5) institutions and governance, and 6) corporate social responsibility. An additional angel that could be considered is the communication process and stakeholder involvement between MNCs, governmental officials and local communities, when implementing large-scale investment projects. The case presents a conflict which involves four actors: 1) Indigenous communities in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region in Oaxaca, Mexico: Zapotecas, Huaves or Ikoot, 2) The Mexican Government 3) VESTAS, and 4) Mareña Renovables.