The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger and malnutrition. FAO was founded in 1945, and its primary goal is to achieve food security for... more
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger and malnutrition. FAO was founded in 1945, and its primary goal is to achieve food security for all making sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active and healthy lives. With over 194 Members, FAO has offices in over 130 countries worldwide. FAO recognizes Indigenous Peoples as key allies, not only as technical assistance recipients but primarily as equal partners, and as fundamental stakeholders to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Over time, FAO’s work with Indigenous Peoples has evolved to become more progressive and inclusive. For instance, in 2004, the Voluntary Right to Food Guidelines endorsed by the World Committee on Food Security emphasized the importance for Indigenous Peoples to have access to their lands and resources to guarantee their right to food. In 2009, FAO released its first publication dedicated to analyzing Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, focused on the many dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. One year later, in aligning the organization’s work with the 2007 UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, FAO called a caucus of Indigenous leaders from the seven socio-cultural regions of the world to draft the FAO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Today, this policy continues to guide FAO’s work with Indigenous Peoples.
While international instruments and a few state governments endorse the "free, prior and informed consent" of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about the water in their traditional territories, most state water governance regimes do... more
While international instruments and a few state governments endorse the "free, prior and informed consent" of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about the water in their traditional territories, most state water governance regimes do not recognize Indigenous water rights and responsibilities. Applying a political ecology lens to the settler colonialism of water governance exposes the continued depoliticizing personality of natural resources decision-making and reveals water as an abstract, static resource in law and governance processes. Most plainly, these decision-making processes inadequately consider environmental flows or cumulative effects and are at odds with both Indigenous governance and social-ecological approaches to watershed management. Using the example of groundwater licensing in British Columbia, Canada as reinforcing colonialism in water governance, this article examines how First Nations are asserting Indigenous rights in response to natural resource decision-making. Both within and outside of colonial governance processes they are establishing administrative and governance structures that express their water laws and jurisdiction. These structures include the Syilx, Nadleh Wut'en and Stellat'en creating standards for water, the Tsleil-Waututh and Stk'emlúpsemc te Secwépemc community assessments of proposed pipeline and mining facilities, and the First Nations of the Nicola Valley planning process based on their own legal traditions. Where provincial and federal environmental governance has failed, Indigenous communities are repoliticizing colonial decision-making processes to shift jurisdiction towards Indigenous processes that institutionalize responsibilities for and relationships with water.
Abstract: North American archaeology is evaluated in light of state and heritage crime theory. When analyzed with preexisting typologies, the practice is shown to meet the threshold for state-sanctioned heritage crime. This study also... more
Abstract: North American archaeology is evaluated in light of state and heritage crime theory. When analyzed with preexisting typologies, the practice is shown to meet the threshold for state-sanctioned heritage crime. This study also demonstrates how current models of heritage crime do not adequately account for (1) the pivotal role states and state-sanctioned heritage experts play in committing heritage crime and (2) the implications of heritage crime for living descendant communities, not just physical artifacts and buildings. Typically thought of as crime against the state, seeing a state heritage regime as organized heritage crime opens the door to a host of theoretical and practical possibilities, including legal remedies for affected communities. Despite these opportunities, major impediments to meaningful change exist.
Re´sume´: L’arche´ologie nord-ame´ricaine est e´value´e a` la lumie`re de la the´orie des crimes contre l’E´tat et le patrimoine. Lorsqu’elle est analyse´e a` l’aide de typologies pre´existantes, la pratique semble respecter le seuil en vigueur pour les crimes contre le patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat. La pre´sente e´tude de´montre aussi comment les mode`les actuels d’examen des crimes contre le patrimoine ne tiennent pas ade´quatement compte (1) du roˆ le central que jouent les E´tats et les experts en patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat en commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine; et (2) des implications que les crimes contre le patrimoine ont sur les communaute´s parentes vivantes et pas seulement sur les artefacts et baˆtiments physiques. Ge´ne´ralement conside´re´s comme des crimes contre l’E´tat, le fait d’associer un re´gime d’E´ tat commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine a` un re´seau de crimes organise´s ouvre la voie a` une gamme de possibilite´s the´oriques et pratiques, dont l’acce`s des communaute´s touche´es a` des recours en justice. Plusieurs obstacles d’envergure au changement existent pourtant malgre´ ces possibilite´s.
Resumen: La arqueologı´a norteamericana se evalu´ a a la luz de la teorı´a del estado y del crimen contra el patrimonio. Cuando se analizan con las tipologı´as preexistentes, se muestra que la pra´ctica satisface el umbral del crimen contra el patrimonio sancionado por el estado. El presente studio demuestra tambie´n co´mo los modelos actuales de crimen contra el patrimonio no explican de manera adecuada (1) el papel crucial que los estados y los expertos en patrimonio sancionados por el estado desempen˜ an en la comisio´n de crı´menes contra el patrimonio y (2) las implicaciones de los crı´menes contra el patrimonio para las comunidades de descendientes vivos, no so´ lo de artefactos fı´sicos y edificios. Visto normalmente como un crimen contra el estado, ver un re´gimen del patrimonio estatal como un crimen organizado contra el patrimonio abre la puerta a un monto´n de posibilidades teo´ ricas y pra´cticas, incluidos remedios legales para las comunidades afectadas. A pesar de estas oportunidades, existen impedimentos de importancia para un cambio significativo.
This article examines the extent to which a recent law reform initiative in New South Wales (NSW), Australia-the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 (NSW)-advances the general principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration... more
This article examines the extent to which a recent law reform initiative in New South Wales (NSW), Australia-the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2018 (NSW)-advances the general principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The examination reveals some improvements on the current legal framework and some concerning proposals that distance the NSW government from the UNDRIP principles. Key concerns include a proposed transfer of administrative responsibility to Aboriginal bodies with no corresponding guarantee of funding; the continued vesting of key decision-making powers in government; inept provisions for the protection of secret knowledge; and lower penalties for harming cultural heritage than for related offences in existing environmental and planning legislation. Given the bill's weaknesses, the article explores pragmatic alternatives to better advance the UNDRIP principles.
This paper takes the ratification of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as its departure point. Reactions to the Declaration have thus far been mixed. According to advocates, these events signal ‘a new consensus’... more
This paper takes the ratification of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as its departure point. Reactions to the Declaration have thus far been mixed. According to advocates, these events signal ‘a new consensus’ that brings ‘to an end the nation states’ history of oppression of indigenous peoples’. According to critics, however, we have uncritically assumed an alliance between human rights and Aboriginal rights initiatives. This paper draws on these conflicting accounts, the theories of Rancière, and a discussion of a current Canadian court case to offer an assessment of the political possibilities of the UN declaration. Overall we argue that the value of the Declaration rests on our interpretation of the political process by which these rights are enacted. The possibilities of rights-based politics are always contextually dependent. In some instances a human rights frame can represent radical repositionings and rearticulations while at the same time always risking the possibility of co-optation. The acts of politics, in particular acts of dissensus, are the key factors that will impact whether the Rights of Indigenous Peoples lead to transformation or to the reinforcement of the status quo.
Women’s participation in the Zapatista Revolutionary Movement improved women’s potential for gender justice as outlined in the 1994 Declaration of Women’s Rights; however, Zapatismo has struggled to implement and sustain a clear... more
Women’s participation in the Zapatista Revolutionary Movement improved women’s potential for gender justice as outlined in the 1994 Declaration of Women’s Rights; however, Zapatismo has struggled to implement and sustain a clear indigenous feminist agenda. In this essay, I argue that because The Indigenous Congress of Mexico does not recognize repressive indigenous patriarchal structures and solely blames capitalism and neoliberalism for persistent gendered inequity, women continue to suffer systematic gendered violence and oppression at the hands of their indigenous fathers.
While it is increasingly recognised as a core element of the emerging international Indigenous rights regime, the implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent (fpic) remains contested. As the comparative literature... more
While it is increasingly recognised as a core element of the emerging international Indigenous rights regime, the implementation of the principle of free, prior and informed consent (fpic) remains contested. As the comparative literature shows, if and how fpic is implemented depend both on the institutional context and on the agency of actors involved. Faced with deep power asymmetries and strong institutional resistance to their understanding of fpic as a decision-making right, a number of Indigenous groups in Canada have taken advantage of the uncertain legal context to unilaterally operationalise fpic through the development of their own decision-making mechanisms. Building on two case studies, a mining policy adopted by the Cree Nation of James Bay and a community-driven impact assessment process established by the Squamish Nation, this article argues Indigenous-driven mechanisms can be powerful instruments to shape how fpic is defined and translated in practice.
The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has become increasingly important in Indigenous peoples’ rights discourse. But continuing debates over the meaning of consent show the need for further clarification. In the... more
The principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has become increasingly important in Indigenous peoples’ rights discourse. But continuing debates over the meaning of consent show the need for further clarification. In the article’s first section, I give a brief description of consent’s ‘standard grammar’ as developed in other areas of Western legal and ethical discourse to clarify what those who use the language of consent within that tradition commit themselves to, if they are to do so correctly. I also highlight the features that explain why consent has the potential to diminish coercion in relations of deep asymmetry. I argue that this potential is not related to the existence of an ‘absolute’ veto, but to the specific way in which consent structures the interactions between the parties. In the second section, I turn to the Canadian context and the duty to consult developed by the Supreme Court. I make two main arguments: firstly, I show that that language is importantly different from consent. Secondly, I argue that though the Court in Tsilqoth’in Nation breaks new ground in using consent in a way that is closer to the standard grammar, the significance of this move remains limited. In the third section, I turn towards the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to assess whether it presents a better framework for the fulfillment of consent’s promise. I argue that not only is it possible to interpret the Declaration as formulating a conception of consent that follows broadly the standard grammar, but that this reading best fits the Declaration’s basic purposes. However, to develop a functional conception of FPIC, we need to face a challenge for which the grammar of consent has little answer: the often contested character of Indigenous rights. I conclude by sketching three possible responses to that challenge.
Using a “Fourth World perspective,” the chapter also analyses how the FPIC norm as adopted and implemented in the Philippines has been framed within the legal regime of state sovereignty over natural resources. Finally, it argues that... more
Using a “Fourth World perspective,” the chapter also analyses how the FPIC norm as adopted and implemented in the Philippines has been framed within the legal regime of state sovereignty over natural resources. Finally, it argues that there is a legal basis to allow for the substantial participation of indigenous peoples in international law-making and that allowing for such participation would provide valuable parallel mechanisms to correct the distinct disadvantage that characterizes the status of indigenous peoples not only in the domestic sphere, but in the international legal system as well. The chapter begins in Sect. 2 by laying down its theoretical framework—a Fourth World perspective of international law. Section 3 explores the privileged status of states in international law, as illustrated by the concepts of permanent sovereignty over international law, the Regalian Doctrine, and FPIC itself as an international legal norm. Section 4 explores how FPIC, as conceptualized and operationalized in the Philippines, seems to merely perpetuate the unequal power relations between states and indigenous peoples in international law and ends with a Fourth World critique of FPIC. Section 5 explores indigenous sovereignty as a basis for participation in international law-making and the potential for such participation as an alternative means of rights-representation for indigenous peoples.
El Navegador Indígena es un portal en línea que proporciona acceso a un conjunto de herramientas desarrolladas por y para los pueblos indígenas. A través del marco del Navegador Indígena se reúnen datos que pueden ser utilizados por los... more
El Navegador Indígena es un portal en línea que proporciona acceso a un conjunto de herramientas desarrolladas por y para los pueblos indígenas. A través del marco del Navegador Indígena se reúnen datos que pueden ser utilizados por los pueblos indígenas para defender sus derechos y para supervisar sistemáticamente el nivel de reconocimiento y aplicación de esos derechos. El marco del Navegador Indígena abarca más de 150 indicadores de estructura, proceso e impacto para supervisar los aspectos centrales de los derechos civiles, políticos, sociales, económicos y culturales y las libertades fundamentales de los pueblos indígenas consagrados en la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (UNDRIP) y el Convenio N.º 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT). Además, el marco permite el seguimiento del documento final de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Pueblos Indígenas (CMPI) y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). Mediante el uso del Navegador Indígena, las organizaciones y comunidades indígenas, los responsables, las ONG y los periodistas pueden acceder a herramientas y recursos gratuitos basados en datos actualizados generados por la comunidad. Al documentar e informar sobre sus propias situaciones, los pueblos indígenas pueden mejorar su acceso a la justicia y al desarrollo y ayudar a documentar la situación de los pueblos indígenas en todo el mundo. El consorcio formado por el Pacto de los Pueblos Indígenas de Asia (AIPP), la organización Forest People Programme (FPP), el Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA), la Fundación Tebtebba, Centro Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas para la Investigación de Políticas y Educación (TEBTEBBA), el Instituto Danés de Derechos Humanos (DIHR) y la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) es quien ha desarrollado e impulsado la Iniciativa del Navegador Indígena (INI), iniciada en 2014. Este consorcio trabaja en colaboración con la Comisión Europea.
Historically, Indigenous women have been the target of violence at an alarming rate compared to the non-Indigenous population. This work explores how Indigenous women have used the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous... more
Historically, Indigenous women have been the target of violence at an alarming rate compared to the non-Indigenous population. This work explores how Indigenous women have used the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to call for the end of this abuse. The United States and Canada are two North American Federal governments with a strong presence of Indigenous Peoples. Even though Canada and the United States have signed UNDRIP, in North America as many as four in five Indigenous women experience violence in their lifetime. This work looks at how and why there is still such a significant rate of violence against Indigenous women in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, this article surveys the current extent of Indigenous women's participation in the policymaking process. It then explores what changes in law and policy should flow from Indigenous women's activism and in what ways Indigenous women can and should become more involved in the decision-making process. This work also aims to reflect on how the law and policies in the U.S., in Canada and at an international level could more efficiently address the issue. Indigenous women have historically been absent from the decision-making process and even when they are given a voice and their rights are emphasized , for instance with UNDRIP, countries are not complying with their responsibilities on the matter. Consequently, Indigenous women are de facto denied the possibility to participate in the debate, and their claims are left unheard. This article concludes that they should be empowered to advocate for enhanced accountability of the individual countries and the international community alike. In fact, increased participation of Indigenous women in the decision-making process increases the opportunity for Indigenous voices to be heard, in a quest to fight the widespread issue 93 93
Nation-states around the world tend to view Indigenous nations' claims for sovereignty and self-determination in zero-sum terms, fearing that any advancement in Indigenous peoples' self-determination means a loss of sovereignty or... more
Nation-states around the world tend to view Indigenous nations' claims for sovereignty and self-determination in zero-sum terms, fearing that any advancement in Indigenous peoples' self-determination means a loss of sovereignty or territorial integrity for nation-states. This article aims to shed light on how Indigenous political actors in several countries are advancing self-determination in practice with, within, and across the borders of individual states, while navigating the international system, in assertive, maximal, innovative, and peaceful ways that do not result in a loss of nation-state sovereignty or territorial integrity. Some Indigenous peoples are entering into treaty or partnership agreements with other Indigenous groups, in conjunction with state institutions, or completely outside state purview. We examine several cases of such treaty relations and draw some conclusions about how these types of Indigenous-to-Indigenous treaty relations are enhancing and advancing Indigenous self-determination.
