Indigenous Land Rights

This article argues that the (Western-oriented) right to religion has been proven inadequate in protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It recognizes that this is partly because of the distinctive characteristics of Indigenous religions, which differ from other dominant religions, but also because of the way in which religion has been used by colonialism with dramatic effects on Indigenous Peoples and their beliefs, spiritualities, and worldviews. The article focuses on Latin America to argue further that in addition to colonialism, the early Constitutions also attacked Indigenous religions. As Indigenous rights are more acknowledged in Latin America, we take this region as an excellent, albeit painful, example of how Indigenous religions have been pushed aside even in the most positive contexts. The article uses the constitutional and legal arrangements in Latin American states, mainly Ecuador and Bolivia, to critically assess the protection that these favorable to Indigenous People...

Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has been, since 1979, a self-governing country within the Danish Realm. The population is composed of 89.6 % Greenlandic Inuit out of a total of 57,691 of inhabitants (July 2018 est.). 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 recognizes 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 the 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 UNDRIP and other international rights and human rights instruments. The government of Greenland had a decisive influence on the Kingdom of Denmark’s ratification of ILO Convention 169 in 1996, as Greenland has prioritized actions to establish the indigenous peoples’ collective rights to land and resources in their territories.

"Sametinget welcomes the visit of Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz to Sápmi  this August 2015 in her examination of the current status of the Indigenous Rights of the Sami People residing in Sápmi and Sweden.

Sápmi is the traditional territory of the Sami People currently politically and territorially divided by the borders of the Nation-States of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia. In preparation for Ms. Tauli-Corpuz’s visit, this Report provides some follow-up and additional information concerning both new developments and issues addressed and not addressed in conjunction with the previous visit (2010) to Sápmi and Sweden of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Mr. James Anaya, and his concluding Report to the Human Rights Council of the status of the Sami People in Sweden, Finland and Norway produced in 2011 . In addition to any other materials and submissions she receives from other institutions, groups and persons, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz will receive in-person input regarding the status of the Sami People during her visit to Sápmi in late August 2015 during pre-arranged, interactive dialogues with State and Sami representatives and speakers as well as local visits to specific Sami areas with a highlighting of specific issues the Sami People are facing in the context of Indigenous Rights, among other activities..."

https://www.sametinget.se/92639

In Madagascar, as in a large number of other countries, vast areas of community land are being leased or sold to foreign investors, often with the support of the state at a regional level. Large-scale land acquisition deals (LLAD) constitute a multifaceted phenomenon severely impacting land tenure and food systems. These land deals represent a significant challenge for indigenous and local communities when it comes to securing local land sovereignty and sustaining local  livelihoods over time. Justified by the international narratives of scarcity (of food and fuel sources), supported by the World Bank and neoliberal globalist policies, LLADs are typically undertaken by foreign investors and multinational corporations to secure control over means of capital accumulation and create development.

Communities often lack bargaining power and means to demonstrate and secure land property. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) can play a determining role in supporting communities’ claims and responses to LLADs in their territories. CSOs can facilitate topographic and legal support, training and media coverage. They can produce research and information on LLADs which is both relevant and accessible to the communities. They can mediate the communities’ relations with investors and state institutions. They can improve communication among the stakeholders. Lastly, they can fuel and support the emergence of local social movements for food sovereignty and counter-enclosure.

This thesis sheds light on how local CSOs in the region of Haute Matsiatra, Madagascar, can support communities in facing and preventing LLADs. Through interviews and participant observation this research investigated what kind of CSOs’ support is already present and what is needed. This thesis is based on community-based research conducted with the local CSO VOIALA-Madagascar.

Key words: large-scale land acquisition deals; land rights; civil society organisations; land rights; food sovereignty.

Contemporary debates around the ontological turn have pitted efforts to take indigenous ontologies seriously against demands to make visible the forms of dispossession and environmental suffering that characterize the (post)colonial and capitalist present. Meanwhile, a growing array of governmental projects seeks to identify and protect indigenous ontologies in the face of capitalist development processes, including through forms of collective tenure. How can we make sense of such initiatives, and what kind of territories do they encounter and produce? This paper engages this question ethnographically through an examination of everyday life in a legally recognized Native Community Land in the Bolivian Chaco. Drawing on Bolivian Aymara scholar Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's notion of ch'ixi, I argue that indigenous territories are neither ontologically separate from, nor entirely subsumed by, capitalist development processes. Rather, they are subject to multiple land values, ontologies, and investments. A contested indigenous land titling process, capitalist labor relations, hydrocarbon compensation money, and efforts to maintain relations with spirit beings are all interwoven in the fabric of Guaraní everyday life. Such ch'ixi landscapes emerge at the confluence of capitalist efforts at rendering territories investable, governmental efforts at managing dispossession, and Guaraní efforts to maintain life and exercise territorial sovereignty amidst contradictory processes of (post)colonial governmentality.

Since 2009, the Chilean Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have produced a rapidly evolving and extremely interesting jurisprudence regarding indigenous land and water rights, as well as the (related) right to consultation. In late 2009, the Chilean Supreme Court recognized the “ancestral water rights” of the Aymara indigenous community Chusmiza y Usmagama, basing its arguments on arts.13.2 and 15.1 of the ILO Convention 169 (indigenous land as “habitat”, which thus also includes watercourses). In the same period, the Chilean Supreme Court condemned the logging company Sociedad Palermo Itda for damages to Mapuche sacred sites and thus adversely affecting the practice of traditional medicine (arts.13-14 of ILO Convention 169). In mid-2010, the Court of Appeal of Valdivia found the Environmental National Commission guilty of waste disposal in an area contiguous to Mapuche lands and the consequent destruction of ceremonial grounds by also mentioning art.25 of the UNDRIP. The Supreme Court upheld this case the following January 2011. In late 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Peasant Community Diaguita of Huascoaltinos against the Environmental Evaluation Commission of the third region (Atacama), which had authorized the construction of an open-pit gold and copper mine on 2,463 hectares of land (including large parts of indigenous territories) without any (due) consultation with the affected indigenous peoples.

Santal farmers of Sahebganj Bagadgada-farm under Gobindganj Upazila in Gaibandha district issued a memorandum to Deputy Commissioner of Gaibandha district in Bangladesh on 21 April 2022 to cancel the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) establishment plan on 1842.30 acres of Santal land after the protest procession. Hundreds of Santals and local Bengali farmers participates the procession holding with their traditional weapons arrow and bow. The protest rally and Memorandum submission program was organized by Sahebganj Bangda Farm Bhumi Uddhar Sangram Committee (SBBUSC) and Jatiya Adivasi Parishad (JAP) Central Committee. They claim, Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) has announced the establishment plan of EPZ without maintaining the proper and meaningful consultation with the indigenous Santal and Bengali farmers.

The article is an in depth analysis of the ongoing mining conflict in Northern Sweden and Sámi’s land rights from a critical legal theory perspective. It particularly analyses what the mining conflict proves in terms of the Sámi people’s land rights; that they are still settler colonised, and their land is continuously being taken away from them in a construction of expropriation. The article makes suggestions for how to move forward by using Brenna Bhandar’s principle of reconceptualising history. It also provides some recommendations for how the Swedish Government should progress to eliminate the discrimination of Swedish Sámi people’s land rights.

Studies have revealed intense competition over land in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. This study examines land dispute processes within and between hill people (Chakma Community) and Bengali settlers (who migrated through government initiated settlement program in 1979-81) in CHT. By understanding property, identity and authority as relational; my study explores mutually constitutive processes between property and authority relations, and between property and identity relations. It investigates how property in land is claimed and defined in the context of dynamic authority relation in land control and multiple categorisations as well as claims for recognition of identities. By carrying out a historical analysis of state-making, I argue that CHT remains a frontier because of- the distinctive legal and administrative systems, non-recording and ambivalence in property system, ongoing processes of reconfiguration of institutional arrangements in land control and state’s territorial strategies to control population and space. The study employs an ethnographic approach and data are collected by engaging with disputants, institutional actors, academics, members of political organizations and civil society. Working across communities has enabled to encompass differences in narratives, practices, range of strategies and claims based on varied rules, sources of authority, history and identities. Dispute processes reveal that competing property claims are based on various norms (customary and statutory), varieties of land documents (formal and informal) and wide number of authority sources (formal and informal). Property rules (statutory and customary) are negotiated, continuously interpreted and reinterpreted through practices and claim-making. The study draws out various political constellation of institutions and authority relations that are formed through competition for authorising land relation. State institutions- bureaucratic, judiciary, regional government, traditional institutions, military authorities; and non-state authorities (political parties, leaders, brokers), all partake and compete in the process of constitution of property relation in ‘post’ conflict/mid conflict zone, suggesting that state-making or control over land/territory as an active and contested process.
The study finds that land contestations are evolving through contestation over dakhal i.e. physical or forceful occupation of land, which depends on local authority structure for endorsement, individual’s/disputant’s position in the local power structure, proximity of the army camp and people’s ability to exist on the ground by taking certain strategies and actions. The research findings show that identity formation and social positioning play significant roles in competition over land. Struggle over recognition of property in land is intricately linked to people’s struggle for recognition of certain identities. Religious identities of Chakmas (Buddhist) and Bengalis (Muslim) are increasingly becoming stronger and religious identities are mobilised in relation to contestation over land. The study provides an account of recurrent and interrelated processes of constitution of property, authority and identity relations in a frontier region, which has also been at the margin of the state historically. In the absence of tenure security, the existing stalemate situation regarding the formalisation process and non-recognition of customary land rights of hill people, it is crucial to understand existing land relations in order to plan and implement development policies, particularly those related to land and forest in CHT. My research has taken a novel approach in studying land conflicts by investigating the making of property, authority and identity relations in a contested territory. It contributes to existing knowledge regarding land relations and related processes of authority and identity formation in CHT, and in regions that can be characterised as frontiers or at the margin of the state.

This PhD combines insights from postcolonialism, political ecology and critical development geography to interrogate the ambivalent role of land titling in indigenous struggles for decolonisation – that is, in addressing colonial legacies of racialised exclusion, dispossession and inequality. It does so through an ethnographic case study of one Guaraní indigenous group’s struggle to gain legal rights to their territory – “Itika Guasu”, located in Bolivia’s Chaco region – as a Communal Land of Origin (Tierra Comunitaria de Orígen, TCO), a collective land title created under Bolivia’s 1996 INRA Law. Through an exploration of the dynamics and outcomes of this land struggle – which is emblematic of a wave of indigneous counter-mapping and land titling that took place across the Americas during the 1990s – I trace the gradual unravelling of a multicultural project of indigenous territory, predicated on the creation of bounded spaces of ethnic cultural difference, amidst the “entangled landscapes” (Moore, 2005) of postcolonial and neoliberal development. Specifically, I argue that governmental efforts to “spatialise race” through collective land titling – which both responded to and fuelled indigenous peoples’ own historically-grounded aspirations for “recovering territory” – were undermined in practice by entrenched state and settler geographies, persistent colonial power relations and discourses of rights, and new reterritorialising processes of extractive industry development. The result, I reveal, is a territory that is internally fragmented, incompletely titled, and subject to protracted conflict over land and resources.

I argue that the insurgent identities and frustrated aspirations this produced are essential for understanding the emergent dynamics of “post-neoliberal” development under the government of Evo Morales (2005 – present). As the case of Itika Guasu shows, despite Morales’s discursive support for indigenous territorial rights and decolonisation, indigenous territorial claims have continued to be subordinated to colonial and neo-colonial capitalist geographies – in particular, to the nation-state’s own claim to hydrocarbon resources, now framed as the economic basis for a state-led project of decolonisation and social redistribution. The creative and surprising ways in which the Guaraní of Itika Guasu have responded to this scenario – abandoning state land titling in favour of transnational negotiations over gas rents – challenge us to rethink common assumptions about indigenous development, autonomy and decolonisation. Specifically, I argue that emerging territorial imaginaries and strategies in Itika Guasu are illustrative of indigenous peoples’ place-based and historically-grounded engagement in an emergent regime of “hydrocarbon citizenship”.

The first in-depth and ethnographic study of indigenous TCO land titling in Bolivia, this thesis makes an important contribution to current debates in political ecology, postcolonialism and critical development geography – including on the production of territory; neoliberal territorial governance; extractive industry development; indigenous rights; and Latin American “post-neoliberal” development. More broadly, it highlights the contested meanings and ongoing challenges of decolonisation in the contemporary (post)colonial world, and the value of a critical geography perspective for interrogating and addressing these.

This study examines the potential impact of recent developments in international human rights law relating to indigenous land claims on the protection of property under the European Convention on Human Rights. The authors show how, in a departure from the colonial law, the doctrine of ancestral indigenous land title has recently been incorporated into international human rights law. This development, however, has yet to occur within the regime of the European Convention. The authors argue that the new decolonised approach to property can and should be adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in its interpretation of Article of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention.

The instructions I received with respect to this second affidavit, were to address two areas that I had knowledge of from my historical research relevant to the issue of Maya traditional and historic rights.  First, information pertaining to the extent of early British authority in the Bay of Honduras, prior to the creation of the colony; and second, information concerning Maya/British relations with respect to land, and the extent to which the highest colonial authorities protected, accommodated, or obliterated the Maya customary land use patterns.  I was also asked to review the affidavits filed by the Attorney General and respond to any inaccuracies that I might identify in them.

Il presente lavoro, suddiviso in tre capitoli, dopo aver delineato la condizione giuridica a livello internazionale dei popoli indigeni, si sofferma in particolare sul diritto dei popoli indigeni alla terra e allo sfruttamento delle relative risorse. Si tratta di una serie di diritti fondamentali per la sopravvivenza stessa delle comunità indigene, in virtù del loro profondo legame spirituale con la terra di appartenenza. Nel secondo capitolo verrà analizzata la protezione dei diritti dei popoli indigeni, con particolare attenzione ai land rights, nell’ambito del sistema interamericano di protezione dei diritti umani. Soprattutto si farà riferimento all’azione della Corte interamericana dei diritti dell’uomo che ha elaborato una giurisprudenza “evolutiva” nel riconoscere il diritto alla terra alle comunità indigene. Infine nel terzo capitolo verrà data una dimostrazione pratica della tutela giuridica del diritto alla terra dei popoli indigeni da parte della Corte interamericana, attraverso l’analisi di quello che viene considerato il leading case in materia, il caso Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua . Questa sentenza è stata alla base di una serie di casi successivi, che verranno analizzati seguendo l’ordine cronologico delle sentenze. Come si vedrà nel presente lavoro la Corte interamericana, che opera nell’ambito dell’Organizzazione degli Stati Americani, si è imposta come l’organo di un sistema regionale di tutela dei diritti umani che ha dato il maggior contributo alla tutela dei popoli indigeni. La Corte infatti, pur basandosi su strumenti di diritti fondamentali in capo agli individui, ha tutelato i diritti delle comunità indigene nella loro dimensione collettiva. Attraverso una serie di emblematiche sentenze la Corte ha sviluppato una vera e propria prassi nel riconoscimento del diritto alla terra dei popoli indigeni, interpretando in maniera evolutiva le disposizioni della Convenzione americana dei diritti umani  e stabilendo delle forme di riparazione da parte degli Stati per risarcire le comunità vittime.
La giurisprudenza della Corte si è sviluppata parallelamente a numerosi strumenti di soft law nell’ambito delle Nazioni Unite, su tutti la già citata Dichiarazione sui diritti dei popoli indigeni del 2007 che, pur non essendo vincolante, ambisce a fissare degli standard di riferimento a livello internazionale. Affinché si arrivi ad un’effettiva protezione dei popoli indigeni occorre uno sforzo congiunto tra l’azione di organizzazioni internazionali in seno alle Nazioni Unite, di sistemi regionali di protezione dei diritti umani come la Corte interamericana e soprattutto degli Stati, che si attivino per proteggere i diritti delle comunità indigene stanziate sul proprio territorio. La speranza è quella di giungere all’approvazione uno strumento internazionale vincolante per gli Stati, che veda il coinvolgimento e la partecipazione effettiva dei popoli indigeni, in modo che essi possano finalmente considerarsi tutelati nei confronti degli Stati in cui vivono. Infatti la Convenzione OIL n. 169 sui popoli indigeni e tribali , anche se fondamentale per il percorso di riconoscimento dei diritti dei popoli indigeni e a tutt’oggi lo strumento internazionale vincolante più importante in materia, nel suo processo di redazione non ha coinvolto i rappresentanti indigeni ed è stata ratificata soltanto da una minoranza di Stati.

Bolivia is the only country to have “ratified” the UNDRIP, implementing it as domestic law with Law No.3760 of 2007. The Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro-Secure (TIPNIS) is a recognized National Park, a demarked Indigenous Communitarian Native Land, and home to approximately 60-70 indigenous communities. The construction of a highway that crosses the TIPNIS in the middle began in June 2011. The project was approved without any prior consultation, and after two indigenous protest marches, a contested consultation process was organized in late 2012. However, the results were questioned. The completion of the highway appears to be currently blocked, although work on the first stretch has continued. No compensation or redress mechanism for the affected indigenous communities is currently foreseen. Indigenous lawsuits in domestic courts so far have been declared inadmissible. Hence, this case concerns, inter alia, the following indigenous land-related issues: (present) land dispossession; noncompliance with indigenous land demarcation; and non-provision of mechanisms for prevention and/or redress in cases of land dispossession (UNDRIP arts. 8.1, 10, 26 and 28; ILO Convention arts.14-16). Additionally, it concerns indigenous rights to consultation (ILO Convention arts.6 and 16, UNDRIP arts.19 and 32.2, 2009 Bolivian Constitution art.30.2, nos.6, 15 and 16, and other domestic laws) and to free, prior, and informed consent (UNDRIP arts. 10, 19 and 32.2, 2009 Bolivian Constitution art.30.2, no.15 and art.403.1, and other domestic laws).

The article uses the diplomatic efforts of John Brant and Robert Kerr to negotiate land claims with the Colonial Office in 1822 on behalf of the Grand River Six Nations, while presenting themselves (however problematically) as Mohawk indigenous modernizers, as a case study in the complicated interaction between colonialism and ideas of 'tradition' and 'modernity' in the early nineteenth century. Six Nations efforts to adapt to the colonial economy were frequently stymied by the colonial state's refusal to accommodate Mohawk demands, and in that sense modernity was a discursive trap for indigenous modernizers, not a real route to change. The failure of the diplomatic visit also illustrates the difficulties of negotiation in a changing colonial context in which indigenous peoples were increasingly seen as wards of the settler state rather than imperial military allies. Nonetheless, Grand River community members consistently tried to use both 'modernist' and 'traditionalist' strategies to defend indigenous sovereignty, whatever their internal disagreements over assimilation policies and economic options.

"Ethnic territories" were a central political technology of colonial rule, which also shaped strategies of anti-colonial resistance in diverse contexts. Today, in former colonies, the making of ethnic territories remains a key site of both governmentality and political struggle. This Special Issue brings together six ethnographic case studies (from Argentina, Bolivia, Cambodia, DR Congo, Paraguay and Peru) to explore how discourses of eth-nicity and territory are combined and deployed in various technologies of government and resistance-from colonial native policies, to land titling programs, to struggles for territorial self-rule and recognition. In this Introduction, we set out an analytical approach to understanding the contemporary nexus between ethnicity, territory and governmentality in postcolonial states. Rather than being the result of "top-down" governmental projects, or forms of resistance "from below", we explore how "ethnic territories" are created by diverse subjects engaged in situated struggles over categories, recognition and boundaries. Our approach draws on Foucault's concepts of "governmentality" and "counter-conducts" in order to capture how struggles may simultaneously contest and reproduce dominant ethno-territorial regimes of truth, and how subjects may consciously refuse the "conduct of conduct" of governmentality. We extend this analysis by drawing inspiration from postcolonial and decolonial scholarship to highlight how subaltern actors engage with, appropriate, problematise or refuse governmental interventions in pursuit of their own political projects and visions for self-determination, which may exceed the scope of governmental knowledges. At the same time, we seek to problematise accounts that essentialise ethnic territories as bounded sites of ontological difference and indigenous resistance. Building on recent work by indigenous scholars, we propose an approach that takes seriously subaltern agency and the endurance of alternative ways of being and knowing, while keeping the persistent constraining effects of the colonial nexus between ethnicity, territory and governmentality firmly in view.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter LAA) has enabled the state to acquire land compulsorily even without theconsent of the land owner in the name of 'public purpose'. Of course, state is legally bound to pay the payment of compensation for such acquisitions. However, to the individual land owners only. But the compensations paid by the state are usuallynot fair, and at times, these are not enough as it was not equivalent to the market rate. Moreover, rehabilitation and resettlement (hereafter R&R) of the displaced or project affected people has never been the priority of the state. To accomplish specified developmental goals have been its topmost priority and least interest is paid to the livelihood crisis and other socio-economic issues brought about by these developmental projects. However, a large quantum of land acquisition, since India's independence has compelled the displaced people and communities to resist these compulsory land acquisitions by the state under the arbitrary LAA, 1894. This

Indigenous peoples now engage with many decentralized approaches to environmental management that offer opportunities for integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and western science to promote cultural diversity in the management of social-ecological system sustainability. Nevertheless, processes of combining IEK with western science are diverse and affected by numerous factors, including the adaptive co-management context, the intrinsic characteristics of the natural resources, and the governance systems. We present a typology of Indigenous engagement in environmental management, derived through comparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies, and consider its implications for the integration of IEK with western science. Sociological and rational choice institutionalism underpin our analytical framework, which differentiates on three axes: (1) power sharing, incorporating decision making, rules definition, resource values and property rights; (2) participation, incorporating participatory processes, organizations engaged, and coordination approaches; (3) intercultural purpose, incorporating purposes of environmental management, Indigenous engagement, Indigenous development and capacity building. Our typology groups engagement into four types: Indigenous governed collaborations; Indigenous-driven cogovernance; agency-driven co-governance; and agency governance. From our analysis of manifestations of knowledge integration across the types, we argue that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems. Supporting Indigenous governance without, or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous cultural purposes underpinning IEK, and benefits knowledge integration. We conclude by advocating that the typology be applied to test its general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchers to develop robust governance for Indigenous knowledge integration in environmental management.

Anarchists live in cultural spaces sustained by a lived commitment to collect- ive principles and values that differ from mainstream norms. These values are based on a different way of thinking about and living in the world, which chal- lenges established ideas on every issue, discourse, institution, and social rela- tion imaginable. The backbone principle of anarchism is a critique of relations of domination, so anarchist values and practices are against domination, be it in the form of hierarchies, unequal power relations, structural inequities, or authoritarian behaviours. Media practices derive from this principle as well. Whereas many alternative media theorists and practitioners work against mainstream media practices, anarchists have lived anti-authoritarian values as a point of departure. These values include direct democracy, participation, cooperation, collective self-determination, taking action to create change, mutual respect, long-term accountability, and lived social equality, among others. They are crucial to the creation of anarchist media, and therefore as anarchists we come to media production and theory with different objectives. Media activists ask: How can we challenge mainstream media to get our voices out and gain power? In contrast, anarchists ask: How can we tell stories of our communities in directly democratic, mutually respectful, collectively account- able, caring, and compassionate ways that will continue to create the social transformation toward which we are working in our activism? How can media be created and shared in ways that prefigure a non-hierarchical society?

WHY CUSTOMARY LAW MATTERS:
THE ROLE OF CUSTOMARY LAW IN THE PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLESʼ HUMAN RIGHTS

PhD thesis available free online at
https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/…/27…/EThesisCombined.pdf…

Abstract
For millions of Indigenous peoples around the world their own customary laws (non- state laws they consider binding upon them) are their primary, if not their only source of law.
Marginalised by positive law over the past 200 years the status of indigenous peoples’ legal systems and most importantly of their customary laws has changed dramatically in the twenty years between 1990 and 2010. During this period national and international law and jurisprudence has clearly recognised the rights of Indigenous peoples to be governed by their own legal regimes and the obligation of states to respect and recognise their laws and institutions and the ancestral rights they uphold.
The study shows that customary law, far from being an archaic and quaint system of law existing on the margins and of little interest and less importance to the mainstream legal system, is a vibrant and dynamic body of ‘living law’ which is vital for the realisation of Indigenous peoples’ human rights and a crucial element of any system of good global governance

Table of contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements ..ii
Introduction...1
a. Customary international law....5
b. Indigenous peoples' customary law ...7
c. Customary law's global reach .10
d. Giving custom its due .....13
Chapter 1. Customary law in context.... 15
1.1 Historic treatment of custom as a source of law ......15
1.1.1 the historic status of customary law.......16
1.1.2 the common law theory of custom...........17
1.2 Customary law of Indigenous peoples ......25
1.2.1 the nature of Indigenous peoples legal regimes........26
1.2.2 the nature of customary law .....29
1.3 Characteristics of Indigenous peoples’ customary laws.......32 1.3.1 characteristics of customary law ...33
1.3.2 sources of customary law .......37
Chapter 2. Custom’s Colonial Legacy .. 42
2.1 Native Dominium and a Spanish take on the Law of Nations .42
2.1.1 Native Dominium and ‘just war’ in the New World..43
2.1.2 the Irish and their Brehon laws ...47
2.2 Broken treaties and doctrinal fictions......50
2.2.1 Treaty making and breaking ..51
2.2.2 Doctrinal Shenanigans: Discovery and Terra nullius ...55
2.3 Recognition of customary law.....57
2.3.1 in search of customary law....59
2.3.2 Codification of custom.....65
Chapter 3. Customary law today... 75
3.1 Sovereignty and Self-Governance..........76
3.1.1 autonomy in practice............78
3.1.2 indigenous rights of self-identification ..83
3.2 National and international recognition of customary law ... 95 3.2.1 international recognition of Indigenous peoples’ customary law ...95
3.2.2 constitutional recognition of customary law ....98
3.3 Tribal law and tribal courts ...105
3.3.1 the scope of customary law and its status in tribal legal regimes ..106
3.3.2 State recognition of tribal courts and customary jurisdiction
Chapter 4. In Praise of Customary Law ... 119
4.1 Obligations to recognise customary law ...121
4.1.1 participation and consultation ...121
4.1.2 free prior informed consent...126 4.2 Protection of cultural and biological diversity .131
4.2.1 cultural diversity and rights to a ‘way of life’....132
4.2.2 traditional resource management and biodiversity conservation...139
7.3.2 alternative approaches to protection of traditional knowledge
4.3.1 Custom in stateless and failing states.....149
4.3.2 Custom, human rights and the rule of law ...156
Chapter 5 Ancestral rights recovered.... 161
5.1 Indigenous peoples’ rights to land.....163
5.1.1 Indigenous peoples individual and collective land rights ...163 5.2 Native title and its extinguishment..166
5.2.1 native, aboriginal and traditional title ...167
5.2.2 extinguishing native title.......173
5.3 Rights to land and sacred sites .....180
5.3.1 international recognition of traditional title ..182
5.3.2 access to and control of sacred sites...189
Chapter 6 Natural Resources or Essences of Life? . 196
6.1 Rights over natural resources under international law
6.1.1 Indigenous peoples’ rights over natural resources.
6.1.2 native title and the duty to consult ..200
6.2. Mining and subsurface resource rights and wrongs ..204
6.2.1 rights to subsurface resources ...205
6.2.2 righting resource wrongs...209
6.3 Farmers rights and the conservation of agrobiodiversity
6.3.1 access to genetic resources and benefit sharing....213
6.3.2 Farmers seeds and in-situ conservation of agrobiodiversity
Chapter 7. From Cultural Property to Cultural Heritage
7.1 Towards an Indigenous notion of cultural heritage......230
7.1.1 the expanding notion of cultural property and heritage
7.1.2 towards a customary concept of property stewardship .
7.2 Ancestral remains and cultural patrimony....236
7.2.1 repatriation of human remains, cultural and sacred objects
7.3 Traditional knowledge........240
7.3.1 protection of traditional knowledge ...243
7.3.2 alternative approaches to protection of traditional knowledge
Chapter 8. Intercultural legal pluralism
8.1 Recognition and proof of customary law ...265
8.1.1 the judicial interface and the search for the ‘living’ law...265
8.1.2 proof of custom and alternative dispute resolution........271 8.2 The changing face of custom..........276
8.2.1 customising human rights ........276
8.2.2 custom-made law .......286
a. community protocols .................. 287
b. stewardship .. 290
8.3 Intercultural legal pluralism: coming into the light..........293
8.3.1 in search of intercultural equity ......294
8.3.2 restoring the fragmented legal order .......296
Conclusions. .... 302
Bibliography ................306
Table of Cases.............. 321

In 1988 (4-8 July) the 46th International Congress of Americanists took place in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. For that occasion several solidarity groups as well as individual scholars and students joined forces together with the Carib organisation Tukayana, formed by Carib migrants from Suriname living in Holland, to make sure that in this congress there would be a strong participation of Indigenous scholars from all over the Americas. To make fundraising possible a foundation was created, called Musiro, a term from the Carib language, which refers to mutual help and exchange in a community.
Senator Prof. Dr. Bas de Gaay Fortman accepted the presidency of the foundation; among the executive board members were Indigenous representatives Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez (Ñuu Sau / Mixtec) and Frans Malajuwara (Kaliña / Carib). Archaeologist Dr. Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen (Leiden University) was the scholarly coordinator of the initiative. Lee de Jong was the foundation's executive secretary, assisted by students Reina and Jaap de Vries as well as many other volunteers. 
During a week-long symposium ‘La Visión India’ the invited speakers presented their analyses of a wide rage of topics, concentrating on issues of land, culture, language and human rights. This publication brings together the presentations of that symposium, published locally in Leiden (1989).
In addition the foundation Musiro created a lot of media attention for the event and also made it possible for the invited Indigenous representatives to visit support organisations In Holland and neighbouring countries and to participate in the session of the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples at the U.N. in Geneva that same year.

Converting Old Possessions into Lease System in Ethiopia: Decades of Unsuccessful Endeavors
                          Taye Minale Belachew & Habtarnu Sitotaw Sernahagne
Abstract
Dual urban land tenure arrangements have continued to exist in urban centers of the Ethiopia since the beginning of 1990's. However, despite the fact that the lease system began to be implemented for more than a decade ago, we are still witnessing the existence of urban land lease holdings and old possessions side by side. The attempt to have a unified tenure arrangement began with the current government following the enactment of the first urban land lease proclamation in 1993. However, this attempt has turned out to be unsuccessful so far, due to various reasons. Similarly, an unsuccessful effort was witnessed during the implementation period of the 2002 subsequent urban land lease  proclamation.
However, like its preceding urban land lease laws, even if the law aims to achieve otherwise, no feasible change has been observed in unifying the urban land tenure system after the coming into force of the existing Urban Lands Lease law in 2011. Using a doctrinal approach, this article aims to examine why the government is unable to start the process of implementing the law in unifying the urban land tenure system. More specifically, the major possible challenges the government may encounter in converting old possessions into lease holdings and the corresponding benefits that can be accrued to the lease holders, as well as the government, will also be addressed. Moreover, in order to substantiate the argument forwarded in this article, interviews were also conducted with relevant experts in the field from the two concerned authorities of Amhara region. Based on the primary data and analysis of various legal documents, the authors argue that if there is a need to have a unified tenure arrangement in urban areas of the country through converting old possession into lease holdings and if there is a need to rectify previous failures, especially after the enactment of an  unambiguous and unequivocal regulation by the Council of Ministers, then a different approaches and strategies must be adopted.
Key Words: Old Possession, Lease System, Urban Land, Conversion

Pastoral and agro-pastoral areas in eastern Africa and elsewhere on the continent have long been regarded as peripheries, especially in economic terms, but also in terms of social and cultural accomplishments. Although biased perceptions of the 'unproductive' uses of pastoralism have become outdated, government policies still do little to formally recognise or integrate pastoral lands as critical parts of rural livelihood systems and economic development models. Instead, many states give preference to large-scale agricultural investments in pastoral areas, resulting in the loss or fragmentation of rangelands, induced sedentarisation of pastoralists, and a radical reduction in livestock numbers. The Lands of the Future Research Network supports the view that alienation of pastoralists from productive lands often is unwarranted, unproductive, and unadvisable. In such cases it would be better for the overall economy and society to leave things as they are, or, if 'development' comes in, to discuss the development potential of pastoralism. In other cases of integrated economies, combining old and new forms ('mixed agriculture' on a societal scale) might offer advantages to all groups of participants as well as the national economy. Drawing on research from Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Tanzania our paper looks at the significance of pastoralism as a productive economy and the positive bearing it has on the environment, wildlife conservation, and on the health and well-being of pastoral communities. The paper also reflects on what is at stake when one form of land use is replaced by another and when customary rules and practices regarding land access, land use, and traditional law are not fully recognised by policy makers.

Rising tensions between states and indigenous peoples are reaching a tipping point, and with an ever-shrinking civic space worldwide, the topics of criminalisation of Indigenous Rights Defenders’ activities and their organisations; land rights issues; and access to justice are more important than ever.

The Indigenous World 2019 adds to the documented records, highlighting the increase in attacks and killings of indigenous peoples while defending their lands and other natural resources. The 62 country reports and 13 reports on international processes in this edition underscore this global trend, and includes a special focus on Indigenous Rights Defenders at risk.

The book is the result of a collaborative effort between indigenous and non-indigenous activists and scholars who voluntarily share their valuable insights and analysis. In this edition, 97 authors from Latin America, Africa, Asia, Arctic, Middle East and the Pacific line-up the main events impacting the lives of indigenous communities in 2018, making the book a go-to reference for everyone who wishes to be updated on the rights of indigenous peoples.

The Indigenous World is a one-of-a-kind documentation tool, that offers a comprehensive yearly overview of the developments indigenous peoples experience around the world. The book also serves as inspiration to raise global awareness of the rights of indigenous peoples, their struggles, their worldviews and their resilience.

O presente artigo tem como fio condutor o conflito em torno da regularização fundiária da Terra Indígena (TI) Sawré Muybu (do povo Munduruku, no Médio Rio Tapajós) e a investida de megaprojetos de infraestrutura sobre a bacia Tapajós-Teles Pires – como usinas hidrelétricas, hidrovias e portos. Ao tratar da arena complexa desse conflito, será dado destaque àquilo que a crítica munduruku aponta como operações do tipo “faz de conta”, a partir das quais determinados órgãos do governo federal passam a ignorar a presença indígena naquelas áreas e, assim, abrir caminho aos planos de exploração intensiva dos seus “recursos”. Ligada a esta noção está outra, também apresentada neste texto, segundo a qual os direitos territoriais indígenas – e os processos administrativos referentes a eles, como o de uma demarcação de terra – são não raro objetos de jogos de improviso. Ao introduzir essas duas noções – e partindo da inseparabilidade entre “terra” e “vida”, afirmada nos discursos indígenas –, este atrigo buscará argumentar que a garantia da demarcação de uma terra é condição para a própria existência e a autodeterminação dos povos indígenas. Defenderemos ainda que, inversamente, os projetos de barramento de rios amazônicos são de fato promotores de morte. Partindo de elaborações indígenas a esse respeito, buscaremos contribuir para a recente recuperação do conceito de “etnocídio” por promotores e juízes, sugerindo uma ampliação do seu escopo ao abriga-lo sob o conceito de genocídio.

MOLINA, L. P. 2018. As encruzilhadas das demarcações de TIs:
'interesse nacional', etnocídio e genocídio. In: Alcântara, G., Tinôco, L., Maia, L. (org.) "Índios, Direitos Originários e Territorialidade." Associação Nacional dos Procuradores da República

Suicide is discussed through comtemporary issues concening amerindians in Brazil, especially amazonian rainforest. Predation, xamanism, multinaturalism do contextualize health problems and demands beyond friction model or intruding capitalism contraints. Land, landscape and cosmopolitics are histories that make difference.

A reflection that links together two convoluted and problematic themes in Latin American cultures -the colonial penetration and shamanic practicesopens a discussion that prompts interrogations on the focal role that forms of inspirational religious practice recognized as "shamanism" have occupied in academic studies. Anthropological literature has long engaged in a project of characterization that exhibits a partiality toward the medical, psychological and symbolic aspects of shamanism. Such essentialization of shamanism has rendered it, for the most part, as more of a "romanticized inversion of Western rationalism", or an "archaic form of religious activity" (Thomas and Humphrey 1994: 2, 4) than an analytical category that can sustain academic inquiry. This magical attraction of the shaman and the Indian that the project of characterization stimulates has also helped perpetuate the docility that has been conceded to indigenous peoples since colonial times. As Michael Taussig (1985: 171) has pointed out, it is not only a "cunningly wrought colonial objet d'art", but it is also a revitalized one that does not fall far from a "neo-colonial reworking of primitivism".

Throughout the world, indigenous peoples live on ancestral land and territories, governed by their cultural and traditional norms and values. Their lives and livelihoods are heavily dependent on natural resources and these are managed in a way which is similar to that envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). In recent years, however, governments and corporations have been grabbing and exploiting indigenous community land and establishing industries in these resource-rich areas – for example in Odisha, India. In the Telighana village of Sundargarh, indigenous people are struggling to protect their land, as their rights are not recognised. Their fight is an example and a source of inspiration.

En el presente estudio se demuestro por primera vez de manera sistemática e integral la exclusión estatal por motivos raciales que conocieron aymaras y quechuas desde la independencia del dominio colonial español, una exclusión en la que enraízan tanto conflictos históricos como actuales de la sociedad boliviana, de modo similar al de otros países latinoamericanos poscoloniales. Frente a los supuestos de la investigación realizada hasta ahora, no obstante, los resultados demuestran que la discriminación estatal de la mayoría indígena en el siglo XIX no debe ser entendida como una hipoteca colonial de la República, sino como uno de sus elementos constitutivos a largo plazo, que sirvió a la cohesión y la consolidación del poder de la minoría criolla.

The consequences of State claims to, and controls over, the territories of Guyana’s Indigenous Peoples (Amerindians) are traced through successive Dutch and British colonial to post-Independence governments. From the mid-eighteenth century, a numerically small sugar plantocracy wielded influence within local government and ensured that colonial policy served its interests which were located on the coastland. Hinterland policies extended the capitalist approach to natural resources extraction and favoured the dominance of the small stratum of monied interests over the majority of Crown licences for forestry, mining and ranching, issued over claimed Indigenous lands. The colonial government’s approach to Indigenous Peoples was protectionist, but their land rights were not settled in law. Authoritarian post-Independence governments have used the discretionary power in the inherited legislative framework to expand the numbers of, and areas covered by, logging and mining licences. The State is aided by the lack of a reservation process for forests and/or a settlement process to determine and settle pre-existing customary rights of Indigenous Peoples, twin processes that were instituted in the majority of British colonies. Indigenous rights and privileges in their customary lands have been steadily eroded in law, policy and practice. Amerindians receive few economic benefits from natural resources operations on either their legally titled communal lands or customary lands.