Search

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), after 28 years of conflict with the Argentine state, finally ruled in favor of the rights of the indigenous communities of Salta, Argentina. The Court condemned Argentina for violating the right of these indigenous communities to their cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The Court ordered specific action in Argentina for the restitution of those rights, including urgently needed access to food and water, reforestation and the recovery of indigenous culture. Lhaka Honhat is a landmark judgment for the IACtHR sets a precedent concerning the direct justiciability of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). This is the first ruling by this Court to independently analyze the human right to a healthy environment. "Lhaka Honhat" establishes clearer rules for State actions concerning the principle of prevention of environmental damage caused by private individuals and establishes guidelines for restitution and compensation for the violation of indigenous (collective) rights when their natural resources are affected. A more comprehensive reading of the scope of protection under Article 26 in future court cases is likely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How to assess the issue of indigenous land rights in the face of manmade climate change and Amazon fires? How to classify the EU free trade agreement „Mercosur“ and relevant climate, environmental and indigenous rights? What are legal opportunities for indigenous people(s) on the international, inter-American and EU level, to prevent the loss of land and forests, and to protect themselves from climate change? On the basis of indigenous land and environmental rights in Brazil and reactions to the Amazon fires, environmental regulations of the "Mercosur Pact" as well as concerned human and indigenous rights are discussed. Further, this article deals with relevant inter-American law (individual indigenous land rights) and international law (collective land rights). Environmental and climate law provide legal and political options for indigenous people(s), for instance in Brasil. Negative impacts of climate actions on indigenous peoples, the competition between environmental protection areas and indigenous territories, the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in sustainable environmental protection and the allocation of Global Public Goods are discussed. There are various interactions between climate and biodiversity protection, human rights, indigenous peoples rights, and free trade between the EU and South America. While protecting forests as a carbon sink, negative environmental or social consequences must be avoided. Like trade agreements, environmental standards for the protection of the Brazilian Amazon rain forest should be enforceable. To reduce deforestation and to confine the effects of climate change, indigenous peoples rights have to be strengthened. The free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples to projects that may affect their territories is essential. It requires effective, coordinated solutions to protect human rights and indigenous land rights, and it needs a sustainable preservation of climate and forests - nationally and internationally. A collapse of the Amazon forest ecosystem would have global climate effects. In Brazil, alternatives to deforestation and destruction are: strengthening the rule of law and agro-ecology, and to defend indigenous territories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay examines more than a quarter of a century of land rights developments, following the 1992 'Mabo (No 2)' decision by the High Court of Australia. Mabo (No 2) abolished the principle of terra nullius and marked the 'recognition' of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' connection to land and waters. In 1993, it led to the introduction of the Native Title Act (NTA). In this article, I will discuss the central challenges that still need to be addressed in Australian land rights law and related politics. Special focus is given to the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) review of the NTA (2015). This report addresses the main issues of connection (to land) requirements, the recognition and scope of native title rights and interests, and the NTA's authorisation and joinder provisions with regard to claimants, potential claimants and respondents. This essay will further investigate whether the 2017 changes to the NTA, concerning Indigenous Land Use Agreements, clarify native title law adequately, whether native title claimants have now lost rights and whether existing agreements are safe. Although the NTA is a limited, legalistic and inadequate scheme, I consider a reliance on agreement-making under the NTA. Existing agreements 1 assess as safe, however, I reject the discriminatory extinguishment of native title rights in land use agreements and demand their signature by all registered Native Title Claimants. Reforms to the extensive extinguishment regime and concerning legal technicalities built into the claims process would be urgently needed. Finally, I conclude that the ALRC recommendations concerning the NTA should be heeded, for the ALRC determinations would recognise, protect, and facilitate the claiming of native title appropriately. The ALRC authorisation recommendations would give more attention to how indigenous groups could effectively manage their determined native title rights. However, I demand an equitable process within the law governing connection requirements. In June 2017, the famous Mabo v Queensland (No 2) decision1 ('Mabo (No 2)') on Aboriginal land rights delivered by the Australian High Court 25 years ago caused extensive celebrations and new hope among indigenous Australians and their supporters. However, Mabo (No 2) also produced protests, once again, from politicians, business leaders, journalists and academics.2 This controversial landmark ruling continues to influence law and politics in Australia to a great extent. Therefore, it is time to look back at the past years since the Mabo decision was delived to outline the challenges that remain - and to consider what has been achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2008, Nicaragua handed down traditional land to the Awas Tingni community. Earlier, in 2001, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared that this Indian community has collective rights to their traditional lands, natural resources, and environment. It set an important precedent for the rights of indigenous peoples in international law. In 2005/06, the same Court released seminal indigenous land rights cases: In the case braught by the Yakye Axa people against Paraguay in 2005 the Court expanded on its earlier decision in Awas Tingni regarding enforced indigenous communal land rights. The lACourt held that when the State is to determine whether communal ancestral land rights or current individual land rights will prevail in the same property, it could be necessary to restrict the right to individuals private ownership of property in order to preserve the cultural identity or a democratic and pluralistic society' In the ,,Sawjoyamaxa decision" (2006), the Court added a temporal condition to the right of indigenous peoples to claim and to regain their ancestral lands in Paraguay: The State must evaluate claims on a case-by-case basis, using the analysis set forth in `Yakye Axa'. Already in 2004, a report concerned a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the State of Belize by Maya Communities, citing `Awas Tingni': The Commission concluded that the state violated the right to property enshrined in the `American Declaration' to the detriment of the Maya people by failing to take effective measures to delimit, demarcate and officially recognize the communal property rights to the lands they have traditionally occupied and used and by granting logging and oil concessions. Until then, the report was the clearest statement of the law protecting indigenous land rights in the hemisphere. In 2006-08, lACommission received complaints lodged by indigenous peoples from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama. Like in a report on traditional territorial rights of the Kelyenmagategma community (Paraguay, 2007) the still prevailing question arose, whether indigenous peoples land and resource rights exist on the basis of traditional use and occupancy and in how far these rights are safe (in view of a state refuse to consider traditional property rights according to international law standards). In 2007, all these cases influenced the Supreme Court of Belize ruling that the government must recognize indigenous Mayans' customary tenure to land and refrain from any act that might prejudice their use or enjoyment of the land. This is the first national judgment rendered with reference to "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples"; as such, it could have legal repercussions worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]