We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Do Indigenous peoples in present-day Canada display lower levels of diffuse support than non-Indigenous settlers? Given settler colonial relations (both historic and contemporary) and Indigenous peoples’ own political thought, we can expect that Indigenous peoples would have even lower perceptions of state legitimacy than non-Indigenous peoples. However, there are conflicting expectations regarding whether the descriptive representation of Indigenous peoples in settler institutions is likely to make a difference: on one hand, Indigenous people may see themselves reflected in these institutions and consequently feel better represented; on the other hand, these forms of representation do not challenge the underlying colonial nature of these institutions. Using data from the 2019 and 2021 Canadian Election Studies, our statistical analysis demonstrates that: (1) diffuse support is significantly lower among Indigenous peoples than non-Indigenous peoples, including people of color; (2) Indigenous respondents across multiple peoples have similarly low levels of diffuse support, and (3) being represented by an Indigenous Member of Parliament does not change the levels of diffuse support among Indigenous peoples. Overall, our research highlights the outstanding challenges to achieving reconciliation through the Canadian state and points to ways large-N analyses may be made more robust.
This article focuses on the nature-culture dimension in the Amazonian territory as an ontological question. It is argued that international law, as a product of modern Western societies, reflects and reproduces particular ideas about what the environment is. These ideas in turn reflect specific nature-culture relations that are not necessarily present in other societies. This is especially evident in contexts such as the Amazon, where the basic assumptions that modern Western society takes for granted cannot be extrapolated. The argument is illustrated through the Amazonian Kukama-Kukamiria people’s conception of the river, which was put on the ropes by the implementation of a development project. It is proposed that rethinking international law along with the Amazon means situating oneself in not only a geographically but also ontologically different place.
Māori, the Indigenous population of Aotearoa New Zealand, face a substantial burden of nutrition-related diseases, especially obesity and type 2 diabetes. Weight loss, through dietary change, is a central component of obesity and diabetes prevention and management; however, most approaches have not been designed with or evaluated specifically for Māori. The aim of this study was to review literature on the enablers and barriers to dietary change, for Māori.
Design:
Relevant literature published from January 2000 to May 2024 was identified by searches in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Indigenous health (informit), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science and NZResearch. Studies included Māori and reflected enablers and barriers to dietary change for individuals/whānau (families). Data identifying the aims, methods, interventions, location, population studied and identified enablers and barriers to dietary change and responsiveness to Māori were extracted. Enablers and barriers to dietary change were mapped to a New Zealand Indigenous health framework, the Meihana model.
Setting:
Settings included studies based in Aotearoa New Zealand, where participants were free living and able to determine their dietary intake.
Participants:
Studies included at least 30 % Māori participants.
Results:
Twenty-two of the seventy-seven identified records met the inclusion criteria. Records included a diverse range of research approaches.
Conclusions:
Using a relevant Indigenous model, this study highlights that multiple and diverse enablers and barriers to dietary change exist for Māori and the critical importance of developing interventions, in close partnership with Indigenous communities, grounded in Indigenous understandings of health.
This paper analyses the institutional incentives and constraints of the Black Mouth Society – the traditional police of the pre-colonial Mandan and Hidatsa tribes – to understand how it successfully maintained social order without abusing power. The Black Mouth Society was a fraternal organization of middle-aged men that monitored and enforced rules created by the village council and chiefs. Two categories of institutions ensured reliable policing. First, on the front end, a long probationary period and system of unanimous consent facilitated the selection of reputable men who would wield policing power responsibly, reducing the chance of predation. However, individual Black Mouths occasionally abused their power. Therefore, on the back end, public communication created common knowledge, leading to social sanctions in the form of shame and restitution that punished abuses and limited further abuse. Thus, well-functioning self-governance, including reliable policing, is possible without a centralized state, as these tribes have demonstrated.
This study critically examines the implications of integrating Indigenous relational worldviews into the water governance framework of the Saskatchewan River Delta. Using a relational theoretical framework and community-based participatory research methodology, both Indigenous community members and non-Indigenous researchers collectively examine the negative impacts of Western water governance policies and practices on the Métis community residing in Cumberland House, located in northeast Saskatchewan, Canada. Through Indigenous traditional water story-sharing methods with Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers, our focus centres on Indigenous interpretations and ways of knowing the Delta. The community highlighted the pervasive influence of power dynamics and political agendas in the governance of the Delta. As such, we emphasise the necessity of challenging settler colonial systems and structures and reinvigorating Indigenous worldviews for water governance. By doing so, we advocate for the advancement of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination in their relationship with land and water, thereby promoting the meaningful implications of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action.
Invasive colonial influences and continuing neoliberal policies have a detrimental impact on Land, health, food and culture for Indigenous Communities. Food security and sovereignty have significant impacts on Indigenous well-being and, specifically, oral health. Aspects relating to food security, such as availability of nutritious foods, are a common risk factor of oral diseases. This scoping review aimed to collate existing evidence regarding the relationship between food sovereignty and/or food security and oral health for Indigenous Communities, globally.
Design:
Four databases were searched using keywords related to ‘Food security’ or ‘Food sovereignty,’ ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and ‘Oral health.’ Duplicates were removed, and two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts to identify articles for full-text review. Extracted data were summarised narratively, presenting a conceptual model which illustrates the findings and relationships between food security and/or food sovereignty and oral health.
Results:
The search identified 369 articles, with forty-one suitable for full-text review and a final nine that met inclusion criteria. The impact of food security and food sovereignty on oral health was discussed across different populations and sample sizes, ranging from eighteen Kichwa families in Brazil to 533 First Nations and Metis households in Canada. Pathways of influence between food sovereignty and/or food security are explored clinically, quantitatively and qualitatively across oral health outcomes, including early childhood caries, dental caries and oral health-related quality of life for Indigenous Communities.
Conclusions:
Innovative strategies underpinned by concepts of Indigenous food sovereignty are needed to promote oral health equity for Indigenous Communities. The nexus between oral health and Indigenous food sovereignty remains largely unexplored, but has immense potential for empowering Indigenous rights to self-determination of health that honour Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.
This article focuses on the ancestral human remains of Indigenous peoples that were taken by European invaders during the colonial era. It begins by considering the notion of human remains. It then describes the two types of heritage that result from the removal of human remains: the tangible heritage made of the remains exhibited or stored in the museums or universities of former colonial States, and the intangible heritage made of the collective memories of the surviving communities and their descendants about the removal (and the absence) of the stolen remains. The article next examines the role of national and international laws with respect to the restitution of human remains by exploring the concept of transitional justice. This article argues that transitional justice can facilitate the meaningful repatriation of ancestral human remains and hence the healing of past injustice.
Indigenous peoples in Latin America have produced some of the region’s strongest and most enduring social movements, drawing on a diverse repertoire of contention to pursue their goals. In the twenty-first century, social media have transformed the landscape of collective action, compelling Indigenous movements to navigate the evolving dynamics of digital platforms. There is an ongoing debate in the literature regarding the role of social media in mobilization. But we know relatively little about how social media fit into the tactical repertoires of Indigenous actors and what tasks these platforms are used for. This article addresses this gap through an examination of how Indigenous actors use social media during protest events. We conducted a comparative analysis of social media content produced by Indigenous social movement organizations during major protest events in three countries from 2018 to 2019. We find that the most common functions include activating supporters and exposing state violence. These functions support several of the organizations’ core mobilization tasks by providing actors with tools to complement collection action.
Australia’s approach to its biosecurity and borders has always been two-pronged – quarantine first, vaccination second. This article asks what this combination looked like in practice by exploring two neglected smallpox vaccination campaigns directed towards Indigenous peoples in the early twentieth century. We argue these were important campaigns because they were the first two pre-emptive, rather than reactionary, vaccination programs directed towards First Nations people. Second, both episodes occurred in Australia’s northern coastline, where the porous maritime geography and proximity to Southeast Asia posed a point of vulnerability for Australian health officials. While smallpox was never endemic, (though epidemic), in Australia, it was endemic at various times and places across Southeast Asia. This shifting spectre of smallpox along the northern coastline was made even more acute for state and federal health officials because of the existing polyethnic relationships, communities, and economies. By vaccinating Indigenous peoples in this smallpox geography, they were envisioned and embedded into a ‘hygienic’ border for the protection of white Australia, entwining the two-prongs as one approach. In this article, we place public health into a recent scholarship that has ‘turned the map upside down’ to re-spatialise Australia’s history and geography to the north and its global connections, while demonstrating how particular coastlines and their connections were drawn into a national imaginary through a health lens.
This article argues that the Rights of Nature (RoN) framework is compatible with various ideological outlooks and political options. As a result, those initiatives may translate into extremely diverse institutional implementations with contrasted outcomes in terms of power distribution. The institutional design of RoN has deep political implications for various social groups who hold conflicting claims over certain territories. Hence, rather than transforming human-nature relations, RoN primarily transform the power relations between human communities. I delve into three conceptual frameworks that could shape the recognition of RoN and explore their respective distributive implications: green colonialism, environmental justice, and the focus on Indigeneity. Through this critical engagement, I wish to warn against the illusion of a post-political ecology where an ecocentric legal declaration would deliver human-nature harmony without deep political battles, social tensions, and economic confrontations. RoN as an abstract notion does not offer a ready-made toolkit to dismantle the legal architecture of fossil capitalism; nor does it provide clear guidance on the distribution of costs and benefits of the green transition.
There is increasing recognition that Indigenous knowledges have considerable potential to enhance collective understandings of and improve responses to complex ecological threats, such as those to cultural heritage from climate change. At the same time, it appears that Indigenous peoples face structural barriers to participation in international organisations that advance knowledge about those problems. Using the conceptual framework of boundary organisations (BOs) theory and case studies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UNESCO, I argue that the lack of meaningful Indigenous engagement in international knowledge institutions is not just an ethical problem; it also undermines the effectiveness of their assessments. The future success of their boundary work partly depends on further engagement with Indigenous stakeholders. At least at the heritage–climate change nexus, the salience, legitimacy, and credibility of IPCC and UNESCO assessments require substantive Indigenous representation alongside other state/non-state parties. Successful experiences in biodiversity governance indicate that incorporating the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) would enhance Indigenous engagement in UNESCO and the IPCC.
This chapter will analyse the right of self-determination in respect of its external and internal dimension, the rights of minorities and the rights of indigenous peoples. Self-determination is the point of reference for any discussion of indigenous and minority rights, although it is far broader than both of these. Minority rights in turn are not considered collective entitlements in relevant international human rights instruments. None the less, as the reader will come to appreciate, they are not devoid of a collective character altogether. Indigenous rights are largely based on soft law and some of their fundamental premises (for example, land rights) are hotly disputed by interested states. Yet, it is indisputable that the international community recognises that the vulnerable status of indigenous peoples necessitates a distinctive approach based on the adoption of measures that allow the preservation of their culture and traditions, while on the other hand helping them to develop, whether technologically, financially, educationally or otherwise. Group rights are controversial primarily because they give rise to questions of ‘us’ and ‘others’ in addition to challenging traditional notions of state sovereignty.
Edited by
Seth Davis, University of California, Berkeley School of Law,Thilo Kuntz, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf,Gregory Shaffer, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
The familiar description of fiduciary law erases European and US imperialism. There is no discussion of the ways in which fiduciary law framed imperial struggles over political and economic power. There is no mention of the roles that fiduciary law played in various European empires and the US Empire between the late fifteenth century, when imperial expansion began, and the time of rapid decolonization in the 1960s. This chapter is a summary of a political economy of fiduciary law and imperialism that I hope to develop at length and in detail. My argument is that the familiar description of the economic structure of fiduciary law is incomplete. So too is the autonomy-enhancing account of fiduciary law. Fiduciary law, I want to argue, may enhance exploitation to facilitate market exchange. It provided an ideological justification for imperial expansion in the interests of opening up trade between peoples. Fiduciary law, moreover, played institutional roles in the financing, administration, and oversight of imperial exploitation and the facilitation of trade among those who benefitted from it.
This article examines the literature on popular liberalism in nineteenth-century Mexico and the shortcomings of two interpretations: popular liberalism as an alternative to elite liberalism, and popular liberalism as a strategy to ultimately pursue non-liberal ends. It argues that both interpretations tend to overstate the distance between the liberal elite and its popular supporters because of an unexamined, dichotomous conception of liberalism and the people (generally Indigenous and non-Indigenous peasants) as opposites. It draws its examples from studies of local politics and sides with the interpretation of ‘liberalism tout court’ as the best available option to avoid reifications of liberalism and the popular.
Chapter 4, ‘Emerging Status as Law? Participation of Indigenous Peoples in International Governance, 2007–2022’, continues the narrative from the point of the adoption of the UNDRIP in September 2007. In this period, the general trend of the proliferation of participatory policies and mechanisms identified in Chapter 3 only intensified. Organizations that had not previously attempted to include Indigenous peoples in a systematic way now adopted mechanisms and policies to do so, while those that had previously instituted such mechanisms or policies sought to enhance them. This chapter maps the contours of this continuing trend, showing how the participation zeitgeist spread through numerous UN organs and international organizations. It assesses the question of states’ and international organizations’ motivations for enabling Indigenous peoples to be heard in such fora. It shows how states and international organizations now increasingly justified participation policies with reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It demonstrates how in nearly all cases barriers to full and effective participation remain.
Chapter 1, ‘Participation in International Governance and the Logic of Self-Determination’, makes a case for how a collective right of Indigenous peoples to participation in international governance relates to the law of self-determination. The chapter begins by examining the development of the law of self-determination in order to develop an account of its underlying logic. The chapter shows that self-determination is dynamic, multifaceted, relational, and remedial: that is, it is capable of multiple expressions that develop over time so as to remedy relationships of domination, subjugation, or exploitation. In other words, I argue that self-determination as a principle, over time, has provided an umbrella for the development of various legal rules concerning the relations between peoples and states; those rules have tended to emerge in a remedial manner. The chapter then argues that a right to participate in international governance could be justified as one such remedy, explaining how internal self-determination and individual rights to civil society participation do not suffice.
Chapter 5, ‘New Epoch, Old Stones?’, is the conclusion of the book. It first synthesizes the findings of the examination of practice conducted throughout Chapters 3 and 4, setting out a statement of the scope and content of the emerging rule in (European) international law. Then, by reference to the persistent limitations to participation, it raises questions about what and who the proliferation of mechanisms for Indigenous participation – and the emergence of a legal standard in custom – serves. The chapter engages with the work of Indigenous political theorists to question whether current mechanisms for Indigenous participation in global governance may in part function to legitimize and protect (neo)colonial global economic and political structures. This does not invalidate the conclusion that the right is part of customary international law, nor is it to say that the project of Indigenous peoples’ participation in international governance is not necessarily worth pursuing. Rather, it serves to highlight the limitations of the right, the contingencies of its application, and ultimately to gesture at a space to develop alternative possibilities for Indigenous internationalism and sovereignty.
This chapter introduces the book. It outlines how Indigenous peoples sought, and were denied, membership of the international community in the early twentieth century, contrasting it to the situation that prevails today of Indigenous peoples’ inclusion in international governance. It is therefore timely to take stock of these developments. The introduction situates the book in the field, relating it to scholarship on the law of self-determination and Indigenous peoples’ rights. The key limitations of the book are noted, including those relating to epistemic positionality and representation, and the empirical method employed in the book. Key terms are defined, including ’international governance’ and ’Indigenous peoples’, before the structure of the book is outlined.
In Chapter 3, ‘The Proliferation of Indigenous Peoples’ Participation, 1982–2007’, I trace how a pattern of state practice unfurled over a span of 25 years, beginning with the establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) and spreading to numerous other UN organs, international organizations, and other international governance mechanisms. It at first takes a chronological approach, tracing relevant practice from 1988 to 1994 in processes such as the negotiations towards the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, UN conferences, and several UN expert workshops. It then considers how momentum grew towards the establishment of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The chapter next turns to consider several parallel trends. It turns to mechanisms for Indigenous peoples’ participation in environment and development negotiations, before tracing Indigenous peoples’ participation in decision-making in international development institutions. The chapter ends by examining three regional stories: the Arctic, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the European Union.
Chapter 2, ‘Finding Support for Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in the Sources of International Law’, turns to a doctrinal analysis. It undertakes an examination of relevant sources of international law on self-determination and Indigenous peoples’ rights, in treaties, declarations, and decisions of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. We see how the law of self-determination has been interpreted by the latter bodies as meaning – among other things – participation of peoples at the national (but not necessarily the international) level, and how participation is at the heart of the law on self-determination specific to Indigenous peoples. The chapter then turns to customary international law, reviewing and contextualizing various methodologies for its identification and summarizing how the evidence described in later chapters can be interpreted through these methodologies. Through these lenses, I discuss methodological debates, including the legal status we should assign to the UNDRIP in and of itself, how a provision of the UNDRIP might later crystallize into a rule of custom, and how to regard international organizations in relation to the identification of custom.