Ezra Rosser on Tribal Natural Resources and Economic Development

Ezra Rosser, Ahistorical Indians and Reservation Resources, 40 Envtl. L. __ (forthcoming 2010).  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1539703.  The abstract is below:

This article is an in-depth exploration of the impacts of an Indian tribe deciding to pursue environmentally destructive forms of economic development. The article makes two principal contributions. First, it establishes the Navajo Nation’s decision-making role. Prior mineral resource forms of development may have been formally approved by the tribe but the agreements did not truly belong to the Navajo Nation. Extensive research into earlier agreements shows the heavy influence of the federal government and mining interests historically. Existing scholarship on reservation environmental harm tends to deflect tribal responsibility, attributing such decisions to outside forces. Without denying the challenges the Navajo Nation is facing, the article calls for recognition, despite the romanticism that surrounds Indians and the environment, of tribal agency and responsibility for the proposed environmental destruction. Second, I argue that environmental organizations that make use of federal environmental review processes are complicit in the systematic denial of Indian sovereignty that federal primacy entails. Although there is a strong theoretical argument that the only limits appropriate for Indian nations are those of nation-states under international law, the Article concludes that the relationship between environmental organizations and Indian nations ought to be guided by international human rights law.

UCLA Conference Announcement on Indigenous Peoples and International Law — Jan. 22, 2010

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the International Human Rights Framework – A Comfortable Fit?

Here is the flyer: FINAL FLYER, and the agenda is here.

The UCLA American Indian Studies Center in conjunction with The Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs at UCLA School of Law and The UCLA Tribal Learning Community and Educational Exchange with additional support from the Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Project David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy Native Nations Law and Policy Center Presents:

Symposium: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the International Human Rights Framework — A Comfortable Fit?

January 22, 2010

Registration and Breakfast: 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Blessing, Welcome, and Introduction of Keynote: 9:00 am – 9:30 a.m.

• Anthony Morales, Chief of the Gabrielino-Tongva Band of Mission Indians

• Stephen Yeazell, Interim Dean, UCLA School of Law (invited)

• Angela R. Riley, Visiting Professor of Law and Acting Associate Director, UCLA American Indian Studies Center

Opening Keynote Address: 9:30 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

S. James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, and Professor of Law, University of Arizona Continue reading

Lorie Graham on International Trade and the UN Declaration

Lorie Graham has posted “Trade Trumps Basic Human Rights?: Why the United States Should Endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The recent uprising in the Peruvian Amazon highlights why the time is right for the United States to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One might wonder how the endorsement of this Declaration by the United States could affect a crisis thousands of miles away in the Peruvian Amazon.

The latest crisis results from investment concessions made by Peru to various extractive industries without any consultation or consent from the Indigenous Peoples of the area. The Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recently issued two emergency statements expressing her “deep concern” on “the reports of atrocities committed… against indigenous peoples in the Amazon region.” The Chair noted in particular the Peruvian Government’s obligations under international human rights law to consult and respect indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands and resources. As reported by the New York Times on June 12th, Peruvian officials attributed their recent concessions without consultation as a necessary step to bringing “Peru’s rules for investment… into line with the [U.S.-Peru] trade agreement.”

Continue reading

UCLA Conference Announcement: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the International Human Rights Framework

From Angela Riley:

Please Save the Date! Friday, January 22, 2010

The UCLA American Indian Studies Center

in conjunction with

The UCLA School of Law Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs

will present a one-day Symposium, tentatively titled:

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the International Human Rights Framework — A Comfortable Fit?

This Symposium will bring together internationally-renowned scholars whose work focuses on issues pertaining to indigenous peoples’ group rights, with a particular emphasis on potential conflicts that arise for collective, indigenous claims within the international human rights framework.

Confirmed Keynote:

Professor S. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and Professor of Law, Arizona Law School

Please be on the lookout for more information as the date approaches. We do hope you will join us!

NGĀ PAE O TE MĀRAMATANGA INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS CONFERENCE 2010

Conference information here.

Mātauranga Taketake: Traditional Knowledge
Theme: ‘Kei muri i te awe kāpara, he tangata kē: Recognising, engaging, understanding difference’

6-9 June 2010 Auckland, New Zealand

This conference addresses the question of difference. What are the costs to communities and society of failing to understand others? Can we reflect on our own assumptions and practice, our shared past and present and imagine and pursue a better future for individuals and the greater collective? The conference will provide opportunities to discuss strategies for engaging, understanding and accommodating difference in order to build relationships that address social, economic, resource, and environmental risks associated with failure to understand sufficiently the differences among indigenous and non-indigenous communities and societies. Given the diversity present in those attending the conference there will be many opportunities to learn from diverse contexts around the world about efforts to engage across the inter-face between indigenous and non-indigenous communities, across all disciplines, from individuals to societies, governments and nations. The intention is to move beyond identifying and understanding problems toward creative solutions that meet the needs of present and future generations. The conference provides the opportunity to develop a broader understanding by seeing and hearing things outside our own scope, to make connections across boundaries, and to formulate partnerships across new interfaces.

Continue reading

Two Papers by Angelique EagleWoman on SSRN

The Eagle and the Condor of the Western Hemisphere: Application of International Indigenous Principles to Halt the United States Border Wall
Idaho Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 1-18, 2009
Angelique EagleWoman
University of Idaho – College of Law

Tribal Nation Economics: Rebuilding Commercial Prosperity in Spite of U.S. Trade Restraints – Recommendations for Economic Revitalization in Indian Country
Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 383-426, 2009
Angelique EagleWoman

Online Documents of Maori Legal History

From the Legal History Blog:

The New Zealand Legal Text Centre had recently launched an on-line archive of documents relating to the legal history of the Maori, the indigenous people of the islands. Here is the announcement:

The New Zealand Electronic Text Centre is proud to announce the launch of the Legal Maori Archive, a collection of more than 14,000 pages of around 250 19th century documents that illustrate the bi-lingual nature of New Zealand’s legal history. The Legal Maori Archive is freely available to the public and can be accessed via the NZETC website.

Among the many documents featured in this collection are the following:

The Proceedings of the Kotahitanga Parliaments

Henry Hanson Turton’s Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand

Maori translations of Acts and Bills circulated among Maori communities by the Crown

The Archive has been created in conjunction with Mamari Stephens from the Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Law as part of a project to establish a corpus of legal Maori documents, which will allow the analysis of the language and eventually a dictionary of legal Maori terms and concepts. It is the first time the documents have been brought together in one place and is the largest collection of separate documents that the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre has digitised. The Legal Maori Project seeks to resource speakers of te reo Maori who may not currently have access to a shared vocabulary to describe Western legal concepts. This Project will collate, develop and make available the terminology from Legal Maori texts, including those from the Legal Maori Archive, to all speakers and learners of te reo Maori and all researchers

Douglas Harris on the Boldt Decision in Canada

Douglas C. Harris posted his paper,The Boldt Decision in Canada: Aboriginal Treaty Rights to Fish on the Pacific, part of THE POWER OF PROMISES: RETHINKING INDIAN TREATIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, Alexandra Harmon, ed., University of Washington Press, 2008. Here is the abstract:

The Oregon Boundary Treaty of 1846 established the forty-ninth parallel as the boundary between British and American interests in western North America. After 1846, Aboriginal peoples to the north of the border negotiated with the British Crown the terms of their coexistence with incoming settlers, those to its south with the United States. As a result, while some of the Coast Salish and Kwak’waka’wakw peoples in what would become British Columbia concluded treaties between 1850 and 1854 with the Crown’s representative, James Douglas, the tribes in the United States settled with the governor of the Washington territory, Isaac I. Stevens, in 1854 and 1855.

Continue reading

Indian Country Today: Seeking justice, Latin indigenous leaders come to testify

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/home/content/42323512.html

WASHINGTON – Indigenous leaders from four Latin American countries came to Washington D.C. last month to assert that their respective governments are criminalizing their right to protest, preventing them from seeking justice.

In what they called an Indigenous Diplomatic Mission, representatives from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile presented testimony and documented evidence at the 134 period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. With the assistance of American co-petitioners Indian Law Resource Center, they met with members of Congress, representatives of the Obama administration and the United Nations.

The outreach is part of a related movement toward the passage of an American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

But the main focus for the members of the Andean Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organizations was getting their message to the IACHR and the international community. They say their protests are being criminalized and their people marginalized, even killed.

“We came here because we are defending our mother, Pachamama” said Miguel Palacin Quispe, chair of the CAOI and president of the National Confederation of Peruvian Communities Affected by Mining at hearings March 20.

“We are the victims of this criminalization and persecution. . for the thousands of instances of human rights violations in our territories we have requested this hearing,” Palacin Quispe said in his testimony before the IACHR, which acts as a consultative body to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The Peruvian leader told commissioners about problems with the “extractive model” of business in Peru that has oil and other large companies engaging in “irrational exploitation,” causing “enormous damage and pollution” to indigenous territories.

“These new neighbors, the multinationals, have located their battles in our territories, and they have put us in a position where we have to defend ourselves.”

One of the Peruvian cases he brought before the commission was that of 29 indigenous activists who, after requesting a dialogue with mining company and government representatives who came to their territory without their consultation, were seized, held hostage and then tortured by the Peruvian National Police for three days in July of 2005.

For the most part, his presentation focused on more recent events.

“It is now known,” Palacin Quispe stated, “that 18 Colombian ethnicities are in danger of extinction and for them we mobilize, for them we protest and there is no mechanism for dealing with this. . we have become the objects of assassination, torture and imprisonment.”

“In many areas, they are preventing us from our constitutional right to mobilize and protest; and the strategy of the state is now to change laws. . so they criminalize dissidence, and in Chile, against the Mapuche, they use the anti-terrorist law. They also seek to privatize public land and along with this they are increasing the military presence in our territories.”

For Juan Edgardo Pai, an Awa leader from Colombia and one of the presenters at the hearing, the issue of militarization is very important.

“The militarization of our territory has brought terrible problems,” Pai stated in a phone interview with Indian Country Today after his testimony at the commission. He referred to the recent massacre of 27 Awa by the FARC and to other similar situations. “When there are armed conflicts there are many people displaced and many Awa have been killed by their anti-personnel mines.

“Our people are still trapped by some of those mines. The fumigations have also caused death; many of our children have been killed by the poisoning.”

Pai said the Colombian government has done nothing to help the displaced and suffering members of his community. He pointed to the recent effort to find some of the victims of the latest massacre as an example of Awa frustration with the government.

“I came here not only because of the massacre,” Pai recounted, “but for the politics of [Colombian President] Uribe who doesn’t respond to our needs and we have seen so many violations of our rights. . we told them about the paramilitaries threatening us also and they have done nothing.

“We have been forgotten by the Colombian government.”

While testimony at the hearings was tragic, there were some positive results to the visit, according to ILRC attorney Leonardo Crippa. He asserted that IACHR Commissioner Victor Abramovich, special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, was “quite interested in following up on the testimony. … and for a visit by him to Colombia along with the UN Special Rapporteur.”

“Another request we felt would get follow up was on our request for the commission to do a comparative analysis of the 11 Peruvian decrees adopted by the Peruvian government in 2007, known as the Forest Laws, with the American Convention on Human Rights to determine if this domestic legislation is in accordance with the international standards concerning human rights.”

Crippa pointed out that these same laws are being used to imprison indigenous activists who have lead protests in Peru and that issue, along with one of the situations in Colombia, are reasons that there should be a separate American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

“This regional declaration is needed to reflect the regional particularities of the region, especially those ones that were not reflected in the UN Declaration.”

In his meeting with Department of State officials, Palacin Quispe addressed the same theme.

“In that meeting we stated that if it’s true that the Obama administration signifies a change in U.S. policy, their relevant officials should participate in the next OAS discussion of the Project on the American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to unblock the process so that this international instrument be finally adopted,” he wrote in a CAOI statement.

In a statement summarizing the hearings, the IACHR urged passage of the American Declaration, as well as decrying the situations that compelled the indigenous leaders to leave their own countries to seek justice.

“The IACHR condemns the murders of indigenous people carried out by private and state agents, and reiterates its concern over the frequency of social conflicts and acts of violence associated with disputes over the lands, territories and natural resources of indigenous peoples. These situations of conflict normally arise because the states do not adequately guarantee the protection of indigenous territories; nor do they guarantee indigenous peoples the right to participate in decisions concerning the activities that affect their rights.”

Negotiations on American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

From the Indian Law Resources Center:


Indigenous representatives from the Americas attend a preparatory meeting of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the OAS.  Photo by Leo Crippa

WASHINGTON – A special session of the OAS Working Group in charge of negotiating the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was held December 9-12, 2008 at the Organization of American States headquarters. Reynaldo Cuadros, Ambassador of the Bolivian Mission to the OAS, chaired the session.

About 60 indigenous representatives from the Americas attended the session which was preceded by a preparatory meeting of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus.   Armstrong Wiggins, Director of our Washington DC Office, and staff attorney Leonardo Crippa gave a briefing on recent developments and provided legal assistance at the special session when meeting with states.

Chief Karl Hill of the Cayuga Nation of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Confederacy) gave the opening statement on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

Continue reading