Latin America is a region with high levels of recognition for Indigenous collective rights. Still, legal protections differ considerably among countries. Why do some countries in Latin America have a strong recognition of collective rights for Indigenous people while others do not? What are the factors that help enhance the presence of collective rights? The author argues that while Indigenous social movements are crucial to the protection of Indigenous rights, they are not enough. The recognition of these rights is influenced by organizational factors (such as coalitions between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous allies) as well as institutional conditions (including constitutional replacement and party systems). By employing qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and case studies from Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru, this book explores the ways various elements combine to create conditions for a variety of collective rights.

This book critically assesses categorical divisions between indigenous individual and collective rights regimes embedded in the foundations of international human rights law. Both conceptual ambiguities and practice-related difficulties arising in vernacularisation processes point to the need of deeper reflection. Internal power struggles, vulnerabilities and intra-group inequalities go unnoticed in that context, leaving persisting forms of neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism and patriarchalism largely untouched. This is to the detriment of groups within indigenous communities such as women, the elderly or young people, alongside intergenerational rights representing considerable intersectional claims and agendas. Integrating legal theoretical, political, socio-legal and anthropological perspectives, this book disentangles indigenous rights frameworks in the particular case of peremptory norms whenever these reflect both individual and collective rights dimensions. Further-reaching conclusions are drawn for groups ‘in between’, different formations of minority groups demanding rights on their own terms. Particular absolute norms provide insights into such interplay transcending individual and collective frameworks. As one of the founding constitutive elements of indigenous collective frameworks, indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultation exemplifies what we could describe as exerting a cumulative, spill-over and transcending effect. Related debates concerning participation and self-determination thereby gain salience in a complex web of players and interests at stake. Self-determination thereby assumes yet another dimension, namely as an umbrella tool of resistance enabling indigenous cosmovisions to materialise in the light of persisting patterns of epistemological oppression. Using a theoretical approach to close the supposed gap between indigenous rights frameworks informed by empirical insights from Bolivia, the Andes and Latin America, the book sheds light on developments in the African and European human rights systems.

This book critically assesses categorical divisions between indigenous individual and collective rights regimes embedded in the foundations of international human rights law. Both conceptual ambiguities and practice-related difficulties arising in vernacularisation processes point to the need of deeper reflection. Internal power struggles, vulnerabilities and intra-group inequalities go unnoticed in that context, leaving persisting forms of neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism and patriarchalism largely untouched. This is to the detriment of groups within indigenous communities such as women, the elderly or young people, alongside intergenerational rights representing considerable intersectional claims and agendas. Integrating legal theoretical, political, socio-legal and anthropological perspectives, this book disentangles indigenous rights frameworks in the particular case of peremptory norms whenever these reflect both individual and collective rights dimensions. Further-reaching conclusions are drawn for groups 'in between', different formations of minority groups demanding rights on their own terms. Particular absolute norms provide insights into such interplay transcending individual and collective frameworks. As one of the founding constitutive elements of indigenous collective frameworks, indigenous peoples' right to prior consultation exemplifies what we could describe as exerting a cumulative, spill-over and transcending effect. Related debates concerning participation and self-determination thereby gain salience in a complex web of players and interests at stake. Self-determination thereby assumes yet another dimension, namely as an umbrella tool of resistance enabling indigenous cosmovisions to materialise in the light of persisting patterns of epistemological oppression. Using a theoretical approach to close the supposed gap between indigenous rights frameworks informed by empirical insights from Bolivia, the Andes and Latin America, the book sheds light on developments in the African and European human rights systems.

"This book examines the struggle for indigenous rights in seven Latin American countries. Initial studies of indigenous movements celebrated the return of the Indians as relevant political actors, often approaching their struggles as expressions of a common, generic agenda. This collection moves the debate forward by acknowledging the extraordinary diversity among the movements' composition, goals, and strategies. By focusing on the factors that shape this diversity, the authors offer a basis for understanding the specificities of converging and diverging patterns across different countries. The volume concludes that the Indian struggles are having a direct impact on the character of democracy, and in the process contribute to the redefinition of Latin American societies as multicultural."--BOOK JACKET.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, grade: 1,7, , language: English, abstract: How can indigenous property rights be guaranteed in today’s societies? In many countries with a large indigenous population this is an ongoing political struggle at the center of which stands the question how to balance traditional indigenous land rights and modern private property rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was initially not signed by Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia. The countries argued inter alia that the article on indigenous land rights could not be brought in accord with their domestic legislation and the private property rights they have to protect. In international law no common standard for indigenous land rights exists and individual countries have found different approaches in their domestic legislations often subordinating indigenous rights or restricting them on various grounds. Frequently, indigenous collective claims are weakened because legislation only recognizes individual rights to property as legitimate. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has evolved a firm protector of indigenous land rights. In its landmark decisions Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua (2001), Moiwana Community vs. Suriname (2005), Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay (2005), Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay (2006) and Pueblo Saramaka vs. Suriname (2007) it has underlined that traditional collective land rights fall under the protection of property in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and are thus equivalent to individual private property rights. This paper will look at the role of the IACtHR in the protection of indigenous land rights in Latin America and will discuss how it confronts the balancing problem between the two forms of property rights. Thereby, it is argued that especially because the challenge stays unresolved in many Latin American countries, the implementation of the progressive decisions of the IACtHR is frequently delayed.

During the last fifteen years Latin American governments reformed their constitutions to recognize indigenous rights. The contributors to this book argue that these changes post fundamental challenges to accepted notions of democracy, citizenship and development in the region. Using case studies from Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia and Peru, they analyze the ways in which new legal frameworks have been implemented, appropriated and contested within a wider context of accelerating economic and legal globalization, highlighting the key implications for social policy, human rights and social justice.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, grade: 1,7, language: English, abstract: How can indigenous property rights be guaranteed in today's societies? In many countries with a large indigenous population this is an ongoing political struggle at the center of which stands the question how to balance traditional indigenous land rights and modern private property rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was initially not signed by Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia. The countries argued inter alia that the article on indigenous land rights could not be brought in accord with their domestic legislation and the private property rights they have to protect. In international law no common standard for indigenous land rights exists and individual countries have found different approaches in their domestic legislations often subordinating indigenous rights or restricting them on various grounds. Frequently, indigenous collective claims are weakened because legislation only recognizes individual rights to property as legitimate. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has evolved a firm protector of indigenous land rights. In its landmark decisions Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua (2001), Moiwana Community vs. Suriname (2005), Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay (2005), Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay (2006) and Pueblo Saramaka vs. Suriname (2007) it has underlined that traditional collective land rights fall under the protection of property in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and are thus equivalent to individual private property rights. This paper will look at the role of the IACtHR in the protection of indigenous land rights in Latin America and will discuss how it confronts the balancing problem between the two forms of property rights. Thereby, it is argued that especially because the challenge stays unresolved in many