Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:20:39.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reimagining the Nation-State: Indigenous Peoples and the Making of Plurinationalism in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

ROGER MERINO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last two decades, the concept of plurinationalism has appeared in discussions about nationalism, statehood and multilevel governance, being formulated as a new state model that accommodates cultural diversity within the liberal state with the aim of solving nationalistic conflicts in countries marked by profound ethnic grievances, mainly in Europe. However, these discussions have paid less attention to the meaning of plurinationalism in ex-colonial contexts, particularly in recent experiences of state transformation in Bolivia and Ecuador, where the role of indigenous peoples in the plurinational project has been crucial. To fill this gap, this article explores the legal and political foundations, challenges and local and international dynamics in the building of the plurinational model in both countries. Under a critical engagement with Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), this article argues that plurinationality from indigenous perspectives departs from multicultural liberal models associated with current European plurinational views, and addresses two challenges: a global political economy of resource extraction, and a racialized state structure working as a barrier to actual plurinational implementation. These limitations explain an intrinsic tension in the Bolivian and Ecuadorian experience: on the one hand, plurinational governments try to unify the people around the ‘national interest’ of developing extractive industries; and on the other hand, they attempt to recognize ethno-political differences that often challenge the transnational exploitation of local resources.

Keywords

indigenous peoplesLatin Americaplurinationalismresource extractionself-determination
Type
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL THEORY
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 773 - 792
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Universidad del Pacífico (Lima, Perú) [ra.merinoa@up.edu.pe]. I am immensely grateful to Prof. David Kennedy at Harvard Law School for his comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The article has benefited also from discussions that took place during my stay as Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School in 2016. I am the only person responsible for any errors in the article.

References

1 Keating, M., ‘Europe as a multilevel federation’, (2017) 24 Journal of European Public Policy 615CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keating, M., ‘Plurinational Democracy in a Post-Sovereign Order’, (2001) XV Congreso de Estudios Vascos 387Google Scholar; Keating, M., Plurinational Democracy. Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Era (2005)Google Scholar; Keating, M., ‘Rethinking Sovereignty: Independence-lite, devolution-max and national accommodation’, (2012) 16 Revista d’Estudis Autonòmics i Federals 9Google Scholar; Tierney, S., Constitutional Law and National Pluralism (2004)Google Scholar; Stojanovic, N., ‘When Is a Country Multinational? Problems with Statistical and Subjective Approaches’, (September 2011) 24 Ratio Juris 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacCormick, N., ‘Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-sovereign State’, (1996) 44 Political Studies 553CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Caminal, M. and Requejo, F. (eds.), Federalism, Plurinationality and Democratic Constitutionalism. Theory and Cases (2012)Google Scholar; Requejo, F. and Caminal, M., ‘Liberal democracies, national pluralism and federalism’, in Requejo, F. and Caminal, M. (eds.), Political Liberalism and Plurinational Democracies (2011), 1Google Scholar.

3 Caminal and Requejo, Ibid.

4 Keating, Plurinational Democracy. Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Era, supra note 1; Requejo and Caminal, supra note 2.

5 Caminal and Requejo, supra note 2.

6 Ibid.

7 For references and discussions on the historical turn of international law as a reaction against the ethical turn in the 1990s see Craven, M., ‘Theorizing the Turn to History in International Law’, in Orford, A. and Hoffmann, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law (2016), 21Google Scholar.

8 Anghie, A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2004)Google Scholar; Mutua, M., ‘What is TWAIL?’, (2000) American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 31Google Scholar.

9 Anghie, supra note 8; Gilbert, J., Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors (2006)Google Scholar; Corntassel, J. and Hopkins, T., ‘Indigenous “Sovereignty” and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing “Self-Determination”’, (1995) 17 Human Rights Quarterly 343Google Scholar; Tully, J., ‘Aboriginal Property and Western Theory: Recovering a Middle Ground’, (1994) 11 Social Philosophy and Policy 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dodds, S., ‘Justice and Indigenous Land Rights, Inquiry’, (1998) 41 An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 187Google Scholar; Short, D., ‘Reconciliation, Assimilation, and the Indigenous Peoples of Australia’, (2003) 24 International Political Science Review 491CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritter, D., ‘The “Rejection of Terra Nullius” in Mabo: A Critical Analysis’, (1996) 18 Sydney Law Review 5, at 7Google Scholar; Banner, S., How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier (2007)Google Scholar; Eslava, L., Fakhri, M. and Nesiah, V., ‘Introduction: The Spirit of Bandung’, in Eslava, L., Fakhri, M. and Nesiah, V. (eds.), Bandung, Global History and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures (2017), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Tully, J., ‘The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom’, in Duncan, I., Patton, P. and Sanders, W. (eds.), Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2000), 36Google Scholar.

11 Anghie, supra note 8.

12 Anghie, A., ‘TWAIL: Past and Future’, (2008) 10 International Community Law Review 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pahuja, S., Decolonising International Law. Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Phillips, V., ‘Indigenous Peoples and the Role of the Nation-State. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting’, (2007) 101 American Society of International Law 319Google Scholar.

14 Rajagopal, B., International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Phillips, supra note 13.

16 Singh, P., ‘Indian International Law: From a Colonized Apologist to a Subaltern Protagonist’, (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Burra, S., ‘TWAIL’s Others: A Caste Critique of TWAILers and their field of analysis’, (2016) 33 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Bhatia, A., ‘The South of the North: Building on Critical Approaches to International Law with Lessons from the Fourth World’, (2012) 14 Oregon Review of International Law 131Google Scholar.

19 Ryser, R., Indigenous Nations and Modern States. The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Alvez, A., ‘Constitutional Challenges of the South: Indigenous Water Rights in Chile Another Step in the Civilizing Mission?’, (2016) 33 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 87Google Scholar.

21 McVeigh, S. and Pahuja, S., ‘Rival Jurisdictions: The Promise and Loss of Sovereignty’, in Barbour, C. and Pavlich, G. (eds.), After Sovereignty: On the Question of Political Beginnings (2010), 97, at 104–10Google Scholar.

22 Xavier, S., et al., ‘Placing TWAIL Scholarship and Praxis: Introduction to the Special Issue of the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice’, (2016) 33 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeGoogle Scholar.

23 Centeno, M. and Ferraro, A. (eds.), State and Nation Making in Latin America and Spain: Republics of the Possible (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Tutino, J. and Orensanz, L., ‘La negociación de los Estados nacionales, el debate de las culturas nacionales: “Peasant and nation” en la América Latina del siglo XIX’, (1997) 46 Historia Mexicana 531Google Scholar. References in Nugent, D., ‘Building the State, Making the Nation: The Bases and Limits of State Centralization in “Modern” Peru’, (1994) 96 American Anthropologist, New Series 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Centeno, M., Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America (2002)Google Scholar.

26 References in Nugent, supra note 24.

27 Grote, R., ‘The Status and Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Latin America’, (1999) 59 Heidelberg Journal of International Law 497Google Scholar; Thurner, M., ‘“Republicanos” y “la comunidad de peruanos”: comunidades políticas inimaginadas en el Perú postcolonial’, (1996) 20 Histórica 93Google Scholar.

28 Spanish colonial rule allowed the exploitation of natives through the constitution of encomiendas, a title granted to conquerors with the condition that they settle down and live in the area.

29 Grote, supra note 27.

30 Centeno and Ferraro, supra note 23.

31 Grote, supra note 27; Matos Mar, J. and Fuenzalida, F., ‘Proceso de la sociedad rural’, in Matos Mar, J., Hacienda, comunidad y campesinado en el Perú (1976), 15Google Scholar.

32 Galindo, J., ‘Cultural Diversity in Bolivia: From Liberal Interculturalism to Indigenous Modernity’, in Janssens, M. (ed.), The Sustainability of Cultural Diversity: Nations, Cities and Organizations (2010), 97Google Scholar.

33 Sanders, D., ‘The UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations’, (1989) 11 Human Rights Quarterly 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Stavenhagen, R., ‘Challenging the Nation-State in Latin America’, (1992) 45 Journal of International Affairs 421Google Scholar.

35 Arocena, F., ‘Multiculturalism in Brazil, Bolivia and Peru’, (2008) 49 Race & Class 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Becker, A., Mestizo International Law. A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933 (2015)Google Scholar.

37 Obregón, L., ‘Between Civilisation and Barbarism: Creole Interventions in International Law’, (2006) 27 Third World Quarterly 815CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eslava, Fakhri and Nesiah, supra note 9. This modernization project remained in the twentieth century: Obregon, L., ‘Noted for Dissent: The International Life of Alejandro Alvarez’, (2006) 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 983CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Esquirol, J., ‘Alejandro Álvarez’s Latin American Law: A Question of Identity’, (2006) 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 931CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landauer, C., ‘A Latin American in Paris: Alejandro Álvarez’s Le droit international américain’, (2006) 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 957CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Stavenhagen, supra note 34.

39 Arocena, supra note 35.

40 Sanders, supra note 33; Suagee, D., ‘Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Will the United States Rise to the Occasion?’, (1997) 21 American Indian Law Review 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stamatopoulou, E., ‘Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations: Human Rights as a Developing Dynamic’, (1994) 16 Human Rights Quarterly 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitty, R., ‘Indigenous Peoples, Self-determination and International Law’, (2001) 5 The International Journal of Human Rights 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stavenhagen, supra note 34; Grote, supra note 27.

41 Smith, R., ‘Los indígenas amazónicos suben al escenario internacional: Reflexiones sobre el accidentado camino recorrido’, in Morin, F. and Santana, R. (eds.), Lo transnacional, instrumento y desafío para los pueblos indígenas (2003)Google Scholar.

42 Craven, M., ‘Statehood, Self-Determination and Recognition’, in Evans, M. (ed.), International Law (2010), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Philpott, D., ‘In Defense of Self-Determination’, (1995) 105 Ethics 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peang-meth, A., ‘The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Their Fight for Self-Determination’, (2002) 174 World Affairs 101Google Scholar.

44 Napoleon, V., ‘Aboriginal Self Determination: Individual Self and Collective Selves’, (2005) 29 Atlantis 1Google Scholar.

45 United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res 1514/15, UN Doc. A/RES/1514(15) (adopted 14 December 1960).

46 Muehlebach, A., ‘What Self in Self-Determination? Notes from the Frontiers of Transnational Indigenous Activism’, (2003) 10 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Craven, supra note 42.

48 Stavenhagen, supra note 34; Errico, S., ‘The Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: An Overview’, (2007) 7 Human Rights Law Review 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Oldham, P. and Frank, M., ‘“We the Peoples…”: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People’, (2008) 24 Anthropology Today 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stamatopoulou, supra note 40; Gilbert, supra note 9.

50 Daes, E., ‘An overview of the history of indigenous peoples: self-determination and the United Nations’, (2008) 21 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peang-meth, supra note 43; Muehlebach, supra note 46.

51 Wheatley, S., ‘Conceptualizing the Authority of the Sovereign State over Indigenous Peoples’, (2014) 27 Leiden Journal of International Law 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Others understand indigenous self-determination as a parallel sovereignty to that of the state: Lenzerini, F., ‘Sovereignty Revisited: International Law and Parallel Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples’, (2006–7) 42 Texas International Law Journal 155, at 187Google Scholar. The genealogy of indigenous sovereignty can be found in the imperial history of colonization: Fitzpatrick, P., ‘Necessary fictions: indigenous claims and the humanity of rights’, (2010) 46 Journal of Postcolonial Writing 446CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Engle, K., ‘On Fragile Architecture: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Context of Human Rights’, (2011) 22 European Journal of International Law 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merino, R., ‘Law and politics of Indigenous self-determination: the meaning of the right to prior consultation’, in Watson, I. (ed.), Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law (2017), 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Multiculturalism implies the deployment of institutional arrangements and legal provisions for the protection of ‘cultural minorities’ (Kymlicka, W., Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (1995)Google Scholar). The minorities to which most Western scholars on multiculturalism refer, however, belong to the European and US-American context, where numerous immigrants seek to maintain their customs and habits and demand respect and tolerance. These authors do not refer to contexts such as those of Latin America, where indigenous nations preceded existing states and demand self-determination by being cultural survivors despite constant exclusion from and violent inclusion in colonial and post-colonial processes.

54 Sieder, R., Multiculturalism in Latin America: Indigenous Rights, Diversity and Democracy (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The constitutions enacted included those of Brazil (1988), Colombia (1991), Paraguay (1992), Peru (1993), Guatemala (1993), Bolivia (1995), Ecuador (1998), and Venezuela (1999), whereas Mexico (1992) and Argentina (1994) made significant constitutional reforms.

55 ILO Convention 169 (1989) superseded the open assimilationist approach of ILO Convention 107, whose Art. 12 justified the displacement of indigenous people from their territories in the interest of national and economic development (Sweptson, L. and Plant, R., ‘International Standards and the Protection of the Land Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Populations’, (1985) 124 International Labour Review 91)Google Scholar.

56 The American Convention on Human Rights (1969), ratified by 25 American countries, has been interpreted by the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights in favour of indigenous peoples.

57 Anaya, J., ‘International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: The Move Toward the Multicultural State’, (2004) 21 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 15Google Scholar.

58 The World Bank, Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century (2015)Google Scholar; The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, The Indigenous World (2016)Google Scholar; The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Guaranteeing indigenous people’s rights in Latin America (2014)Google Scholar.

59 Van Cott, D.., ‘Multiculturalism versus neoliberalism in Latin America’, in Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (eds.), Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies (2006)Google Scholar.

60 Horton, L., ‘Contesting State Multiculturalisms: Indigenous Land Struggles in Eastern Panama’, (2006) 38 Journal of Latin American Studies 829CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 See Van Cott, D., The Friendly Liquidation of the Past: The Politics of Diversity in Latin America (2000), and supra note 42Google Scholar; Hale, C., ‘Neoliberal Multiculturalism: The Remaking of Cultural Rights and Racial Dominance in Central America’, (2005) 28 Political and Legal Anthropology Review 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horton, supra note 60; Sieder, supra note 54.

62 Merino, supra note 52.

63 Koskenniemi, M., ‘The Lady Doth Protest Too Much: Kosovo and the Turn to Ethics in International Law’, (2002) 26 Modern Law Review 159Google Scholar.

64 Ari, W., Earth Politics: Religion, Decolonization and Bolivia’s Indigenous Intellectuals (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Rodriguez Veltzé, E., ‘The Development of Constituent Power in Bolivia’, in Crabtree, J. and Whitehead, L. (eds.), Unresolved Tensions: Bolivia Past and Present (2014)Google Scholar.

66 Gussen, B., ‘A comparative analysis of constitutional recognition of aboriginal peoples’, (2017) 40 Melbourne University Law Review 3Google Scholar.

67 Ibid.

68 Kohl, B., ‘Bolivia under Morales: A Work in Progress’, (2010) 37 Latin American Perspectives 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 In 1921, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil) acquired all concessions for oil exploration but the government did not obtain significant taxes from its operations. This situation and the crisis produced by the Bolivian defeat in the Chaco War were used to justify the nationalization of the sector in 1936 and the creation of a state petroleum company, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB). In 1985, Bolivia reduced the role of YPFB to comply with requirements of the International Monetary Fund. As a consequence of the lack of financing, YPFB decreased its productive capacity and was accused of being inefficient and corrupt. This was the justification for the implementation of neoliberal policies in the 1990s, under President Sánchez de Lozada. These policies triggered the gas war in 2003, when the government attempted to export liquefied natural gas to the United States through a Chilean port. The protests led to the fall of Sánchez de Lozada and a referendum on the hydrocarbon sector was organized by Vice President Carlos Mesa. Bolivians voted to nationalize the sector, recapitalize YPFB, and increase taxes on transnational firms. Unable to implement these reforms, Mesa resigned in June 2005 and six months later Evo Morales was elected (Perreault, T. and Valdivia, G., ‘Hydrocarbons, popular protest and national imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in comparative context’, (2010) 41 Geoforum 689CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaup, B., ‘A Neoliberal Nationalization?: The Constraints on Natural-Gas-Led Development in Bolivia’, (2010) 37 Latin American Perspectives 123)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Kaup, ibid.; Kohl, supra note 68; Perreault and Valdivia, ibid.

71 Grugel, J. and Riggirozzi, P., ‘Post-neoliberalism in Latin America: Rebuilding and Reclaiming the State after Crisis’, (2012) 43 Development and Change 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kohl, supra note 68.

72 Rivera, S., Oprimidos pero no vencidos. Luchas del campesinado Aymara y Quechua de Bolivia 1900–1980 (1986)Google Scholar.

73 Cruz, E., ‘Redefiniendo la nación: luchas indígenas y Estado Plurinacional en Ecuador (1990–2008)’, (2012) Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y JurídicasGoogle Scholar.

74 Merino, R., ‘An alternative to “alternative development”?: Buen vivir and human development in Andean countries’, (2016) 44 Oxford Development Studies 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Galindo, supra note 32.

76 Tockman, J. and Cameron, J., ‘Indigenous Autonomy and the Contradictions of Plurinationalism in Bolivia’, (2014) 56 Latin American Politics and Society 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Gustafson, B., ‘Manipulating Cartographies: Plurinationalism, Autonomy and Indigenous Resurgence in Bolivia’, (2009) 82 Anthropological Quarterly 985CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Valencia, M. and Egido, I., ‘Bolivia: ¿Estado indio? Reflexiones sobre el Estado Plurinational en el debate constituyente boliviano’, (2009) 42 Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America 55Google Scholar.

79 Tockman and Cameron, supra note 76; Cruz, supra note 73.

80 Gussen, supra note 66.

81 Tockman and Cameron, supra note 76.

82 Valencia and Egido, supra note 78.

83 Tockman and Cameron, supra note 76.

84 Webber, J., From Rebellion to Reform in Bolivia: Class Struggles, Indigenous Liberation and the Politics of Evo Morales (2011)Google Scholar.

85 Merino, supra note 74; N. Postero, The Indigenous State. Race, Politics, and Performance in Plurinational Bolivia (2017).

86 Gudynas, E., ‘El Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow’, (2011) 54 Development 441CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Laing, A., ‘Resource Sovereignties in Bolivia: Re-Conceptualising the Relationship between Indigenous Identities and the Environment during the TIPNIS Conflict’, (2015) 34 Bulletin of Latin American Research 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bebbington, A. and Humphreys, D., ‘An Andean Avatar: Post-Neoliberal and Neoliberal Strategies for Securing the Unobtainable’, (2011) 16 New Political Economy 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Laing, ibid.

89 Ibid. Another problem is that the discourse of autonomy is being appropriated by regional conservative elites in Santa Cruz, who demand autonomy for their region to control hydrocarbon resources and develop their own economic projects (see Gustafson, supra note 77; Kaup, supra note 69; Kohl, supra note 68; Perreault and Valdivia, supra note 69).

90 McCreary, T., ‘Historicizing the Encounter between State, Corporate and Indigenous Authorities on Gitxsan Lands’, (2016) 33 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 McVeigh and Pahuja, supra note 21.

92 Tockman and Cameron, supra note 76.

93 Radhuber, I., ‘Indigenous Struggles for a Plurinational State: An Analysis of Indigenous Rights and Competences in Bolivia’, (2012) 11 Journal of Latin American Geography 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Grote, supra note 27.

95 Clark, K. and Becker, M., ‘Indigenous Peoples and State Formation in Modern Ecuador’, in Clark, K. and Becker, M. (eds.), Highland Indians and the State in Modern Ecuador (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Cruz, supra note 73.

97 Martin, P. and Wilmer, F., ‘Transnational Normative Struggles and Globalization: The Case of Indigenous Peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador’, (2008) 5 Globalizations 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Chong, N., ‘Indigenous Political Organizations and the Nation-State: Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico’, (2010) 35 Alternatives 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Cruz, supra note 73.

100 Merino, supra note 74.

101 De la Cadena, M., ‘Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflexions beyond “Politics”’, (2010) 25 Cultural Anthropology 334CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Grugel and Riggirozzi, supra note 71.

103 Perreault and Valdivia, supra note 69; Martin and Wilmer, supra note 97; Valdivia, G., ‘Governing relations between people and things: Citizenship, territory, and the political economy of petroleum in Ecuador’, (2008) 27 Political Geography 456CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Lambert, C., ‘Environmental Destruction in Ecuador: Crimes Against Humanity Under the Rome Statute?’, (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 707CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Jameson, K., ‘The Indigenous Movement in Ecuador: The Struggle for a Plurinational State’, (2010) 38 Latin American Perspectives 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuecker, G., ‘Fighting for the Forests: Grassroots Resistance to Mining in Northern Ecuador’, (2007) 34 Latin American Perspectives 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Becker, M., ‘Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador’, (2011) 38 Latin American Perspectives 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Bebbington and Humphreys, supra note 87.

108 Plurinationalism differs from multiculturalism in form and substance. In substantive terms, multiculturalism describes a society in which a dominant cultural collective co-exists with cultural minorities under the liberal principle of tolerance, whereas plurinationalism describes the existence and interactions of multiple nations within a territory in a process that seeks to overcome colonial patterns in legal, political and social structures. In formal terms, the state in the first case is a reformed liberal state that recognizes minority rights for cultural communities; in the second case, the state is structurally transformed into a plurinational state that recognizes indigenous nations and their territorial rights. This is not nationalism in the modern sense (Cruz, E., ‘Estado plurinacional, interculturalidad y autonomía indígena: Una reflexión sobre los casos de Bolivia y Ecuador’, (2013) 14 Revista Via Iuris 55Google Scholar). Instead of struggling for secession, it attempts to reorder social-territorial inequalities by dismantling racialized spatial and legal cartographies and institutions (Gustafson, supra note 77).

109 Nolte, D. and Schilling-Vacaflor, A., ‘Introduction: The Times They are a Changin’: Constitutional Transformations in Latin America since the 1990s’, in Nolte, D. and Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (eds.), New Constitutionalism in Latin America. Promises and Practices (2012)Google Scholar.

110 Laing, supra note 87; Perreault and Valdivia, supra note 69.

111 Grugel and Riggirozzi, supra note 71.

112 Laing, supra note 87; Gussen, supra note 66.

113 Grugel and Riggirozzi, supra note 71.

114 Berrios, R., Marak, A. and Morgenstern, S., ‘Explaining hydrocarbon nationalization in Latin America: Economics and political ideology’, (2010) Review of International Political Economy 1, at 22Google Scholar. These authors found that of 14 leftist governments elected in South America in the last 90 years, half came to power with nationalized industries, only one moved towards privatization, and six moved the industry towards nationalization. In the case of center-right governments, of the 49 presidents in that category, 24 did not privatize their public enterprises, 19 left their private industries untouched, and four moved their private companies towards the public sector. Thus, although more leftists nationalize, presidents of all ideologies have not privatized state hydrocarbon industries. Even extreme neoliberal presidents, such as Pinochet in Chile or Cardozo in Brazil, did not privatize key extractive industries.

115 Kaup, supra note 69, at 135.

116 McCreary, supra note 90.

117 Requejo in Requejo and Caminal, supra note 2; Tierney, supra note 1.

118 MacCormick, supra note 1.

119 Becker, M., ‘Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador’, (2011) 38 Latin American Perspectives 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Grote, supra note 27.

121 Enlace Indígena 2008, in Gustafson, supra note 77, at 1001.

122 Alvez, supra note 20.