Exploitation of Natural Resources and Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Communal Property over Traditional Lands and Territories : A summary of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ safeguards (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 2017
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I-ACtHR) has developed remarkable jurisprudence for the protection of the right to communal property of indigenous and tribal communities with respect to the ancestral lands that they possess and traditionally used-natural resources, in order to guarantee their cultural and economic survival in the Americas. This article critically analyses the legal regime applicable for the protection of the right to traditional communal property of indigenous and tribal peoples in the Americas, its connection with their right to cultural identity, and the right to a dignified life. In particular, it pays specific attention to the right to effective participation and consultation of the indigenous communities affected; the obligation to share reasonable benefits with these communities; and the elaboration of a prior environmental and social impact assessment of any development investments, exploration or extraction plans.
American Journal of International Law
On November 25, 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) held that the state of Suriname had violated the rights of two indigenous groups by denying recognition of their juridical personality and their entitlement to collective property and judicial protection. In Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, the Court also considered the impact of nature reserves on indigenous land rights, as well as the legitimacy of private titling of property that encroaches on land for which collective title has not been attained. The decision pushes the Court's previous jurisprudence significantly—and somewhat controversially—by asserting that under the American Convention on Human Rights, indigenous peoples are entitled, as collective entities, to recognition of their legal personality. In so doing, the Court challenged ordinary assumptions about the individualized character of most adjudication regarding international human rights and made the possibility of enforcing collective r...
Human Rights and the Environment: Indigenous Peoples and the Protection of their Ancestral Lands
Word count: 1,558 Introduction Issues involving indigenous peoples are becoming more and more apparent in the field of law and legal rights over the last decades. As a result, they are being more frequently addressed by legal institutions through a process of juridification. This means that indigenous people are stepping to courts and other juridical institutions to claim their rights, leading to adjudication and the shaping of indigenous organization and their self-understanding. 1 Despite the fact that there is no clear and set definition of 'indigenous peoples', the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries provides a general sense in Article 1, stating the Convention applies to:
Indigenous Communities before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – New Century, New Era
In 2008, one of the most recent domains of development in international law in general, as well as in human rights law, is the recognition and protection of indigenous communities. Although the problem made think scholars of past centuries, such as Bartolomeo de Las Casas or Francisco de Vitoria, 2 we witness an effective development only in the last few decades and especially in the past few years, both at universal and regional level. 3 It is the general development in international human rights law that enables the protection of indigenous peoples, even against their states. The protection of indigenous peoples is related to many issues of international law, beginning from human rights law, through environmental law until the questions of international investments, etc. This intimates that we are dealing with a rather complex issue. This article aims to present only a segment of it, namely the key points – and, in the meantime, we can proudly say: tendencies – of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (in the followings: IACtHR or Inter-American Court) 21 st century jurisprudence in this regard. Part I deals with indigenous communities as subjects to international law, while Part II treats the very human rights of indigenous peoples of the Americas the infringement of which the most often occurs. Finally, Part III deals with a special question concerning the examined jurisprudence: the reparations and equally refers to the question of interaction occurring in the treated judgments.
9 US-China Law Review, 2012, p. 427-456
The present paper delves into the rich jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on indigenous peoples. Starting from the right to property, the Court of San José became the first regional jurisdictional organ to pronounce in favour of the sovereignty of indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands and natural resources. Building on the collective nature of indigenous cultures, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has followed a collective approach as regards the protection of other rights (e.g. the right to life) and the award of reparations. The IACtHR's jurisprudence has influenced positively the protection of the indigenous communities at the national level and is expected to have the same positive influence on the prospective jurisprudence of other international judicial bodies.
The right of indigenous peoples over their lands, territories, and natural resources has been developed in recent years by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. When this right is in apparent or real conflict with the rights or interests of the extractive industry over these lands or natural resources, resolving the conflict presents complex legal and practical problems. The Inter-American Court has established standards that must be met in order to restrict indigenous peoples' rights over their lands and natural resources, as well as the requirement to conduct transparent consultations in good faith and, when applicable, obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous peoples before a project can be approved in their territories. This article explores these standards and requirements, and analyzes their application by the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 2017
The right to Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR) emerged in the era of decolonization. As a reaction to the irresponsible exploitation of natural resources by colonial powers, peoples under colonial rule and newly independent developing states asserted the right to control and dispose of their own natural resources. The UN General Assembly recognized and reinforced these claims by adopting a series of resolutions relating to the right to PSNR so as to facilitate the process of decolonization. However, the subjects of the right to PSNR have expanded to include 'all peoples' due to legal developments in international law pertaining to the right to self-determination of peoples and other human rights standards. This article explores the contemporary application of the right to PSNR for indigenous peoples, by virtue of their being 'peoples', tracing various developments in international law relating to indigenous peoples since the inception of PSNR in the 1950s.
Cristiana Fiamingo (ed.), Problems and progress in land, water and resources rights at the beginning of the third millenium, 2016
This chapter aims to give an overview on the right(s) to land of indigenous peoples in Latin America. Firstly, it shortly discusses why the right(s) to land is of the utmost importance for indigenous peoples, what it signifies for them and its multiple natures. Secondly, the international protection system of such right is presented. Nowadays there is a wide range of international actors that monitor and pledge to safeguard indigenous rights, and thus, their right(s) to land. General human rights instruments may also guarantee indigenous rights. However, there are two instruments of international law that specifically protect the rights of indigenous peoples, namely the International Labour Organization’s Convention No.169 of 1989 (“Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries”), and the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. Hence, the provisions regarding the right(s) to land of indigenous peoples through these instruments are discussed. These apparatuses provide indigenous peoples with a number of relevant rights and set the standard for their protection, however, their implementation is left up to the State. The majority of the Latin American countries fail to apply the rights contained in the two above-mentioned international instruments, as well as their own Constitutions. This has caused, and continues to cause, land disputes in which indigenous peoples are often not in the position to protect their right(s) to land due to a set of causes that will be explored. Due to the failure of the States to comply with their obligations, indigenous peoples have resorted to taking their cases before domestic and international (human rights) courts. In particular, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights started creating interesting and evolving jurisprudence since 2001 regarding the right(s) to land of indigenous peoples. A number of landmark decisions of the Court are thus illustrated. The paper finalizes with some conclusions and recommendations. As required by the conference, , this paper attempts to highlight the potential role of the European Union to ensure a proper application of indigenous land right(s) in Latin America, and to draw on these lessons for the European context.
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal, 2021
Most of the world’s natural resources can be found on the territories of indigenous peoples. This puts indigenous peoples in a position where they are not only subjected to environmental hazards, as a result of the mining and exploitation of these resources, but are also denied the use and control of these resources. In addition, the proximity to such commodities makes indigenous peoples the subject of widespread human rights violations. This article discusses the indigenous peoples’ situation in light of Garret Hardin’s theoretical “Tragedy of the Commons” concept of the correlation between shared resources and their depletion before the reality of the major role Multinational Corporations (MNCs) play in the abuse of indigenous peoples’ rights. At the international level, we find a progressive consensus in recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples with regard to the management of their lands and natural resources. We argue that the absence of an international and permanent mechanism for holding MNCs accountable for environmental pollution and human rights abuses remains one of the biggest threats to indigenous peoples’ rights. Resorting to transnational and international litigation to close this accountability gap seems to be the last resort for indigenous peoples. This article explores examples in national jurisdictions which establish enforceable environmental rights such as environmental personhood, the recognition of the fundamental rights of Mother Earth, the harmonious construction of the right to clean environment and right to life, and the right to be consulted and accommodated, all of which are relevant to indigenous peoples. This article links the relationship between human rights and environmental protection and, to establishes that resource ownership and communal management of shared resources, rather than state’s control, are necessary for both the protection of the environment and, by extension, of indigenous peoples as socially and culturally distinct groups.