Mitigating state sovereignty

The duty to consult with indigenous peoples

S. James Anaya, Sergio Puig

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Few areas of international law practice illustrate the tensions between business and human rights as well as the implementation of the duty to consult with indigenous peoples. Consultations give indigenous and tribal peoples a safeguard for protection of their rights when confronted by the decisions of governments and business enterprises that may directly affect them. While states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations are starting to rely on, and to take, this duty seriously, states struggle with tailoring adequate processes, NGOs often argue that the duty provides indigenous peoples with an absolute right to give or withhold consent, and corporations use different strategies to limit the scope of consultations. Based on two case studies in Latin America, we identify divergent positions on the duty to consult-positions we call instrumentalist, consent-or-veto power, and minimalist- A nd we explain the main elements of each of these positions. After clarifying common imprecisions, we argue for an approach centred on the human rights of indigenous peoples to reconcile this divergent conceptualization of the duty by different stakeholders. Finally, we argue for reinforcing indigenous peoples' rights with mechanisms for specific safeguards and direct participation in benefits, drawing on the United Nation's 'protect, respect, and remedy' framework, to mitigate the adverse consequences of the existing distribution of sovereign power as predicated by Patrick Macklem's influential work.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)435-464
Number of pages30
JournalUniversity of Toronto Law Journal
Volume67
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

sovereignty
corporation
human rights
business enterprise
international law
remedies
Latin America
respect
UNO
stakeholder
participation

Keywords

  • Business and human rights
  • Consultations with indigenous peoples
  • Duty to consult
  • ILO Convention no. 169
  • Indigenous peoples rights
  • International law
  • International law theory

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Mitigating state sovereignty : The duty to consult with indigenous peoples. / James Anaya, S.; Puig, Sergio.

In: University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 67, No. 4, 01.09.2017, p. 435-464.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{fdb20aab6cf14f0dbaf3d7320c26a2a4,
title = "Mitigating state sovereignty: The duty to consult with indigenous peoples",
abstract = "Few areas of international law practice illustrate the tensions between business and human rights as well as the implementation of the duty to consult with indigenous peoples. Consultations give indigenous and tribal peoples a safeguard for protection of their rights when confronted by the decisions of governments and business enterprises that may directly affect them. While states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations are starting to rely on, and to take, this duty seriously, states struggle with tailoring adequate processes, NGOs often argue that the duty provides indigenous peoples with an absolute right to give or withhold consent, and corporations use different strategies to limit the scope of consultations. Based on two case studies in Latin America, we identify divergent positions on the duty to consult-positions we call instrumentalist, consent-or-veto power, and minimalist- A nd we explain the main elements of each of these positions. After clarifying common imprecisions, we argue for an approach centred on the human rights of indigenous peoples to reconcile this divergent conceptualization of the duty by different stakeholders. Finally, we argue for reinforcing indigenous peoples' rights with mechanisms for specific safeguards and direct participation in benefits, drawing on the United Nation's 'protect, respect, and remedy' framework, to mitigate the adverse consequences of the existing distribution of sovereign power as predicated by Patrick Macklem's influential work.",
keywords = "Business and human rights, Consultations with indigenous peoples, Duty to consult, ILO Convention no. 169, Indigenous peoples rights, International law, International law theory",
author = "{James Anaya}, S. and Sergio Puig",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3138/utlj.67.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "435--464",
journal = "University of Toronto Law Journal",
issn = "0042-0220",
publisher = "University of Toronto Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mitigating state sovereignty

T2 - The duty to consult with indigenous peoples

AU - James Anaya, S.

AU - Puig, Sergio

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Few areas of international law practice illustrate the tensions between business and human rights as well as the implementation of the duty to consult with indigenous peoples. Consultations give indigenous and tribal peoples a safeguard for protection of their rights when confronted by the decisions of governments and business enterprises that may directly affect them. While states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations are starting to rely on, and to take, this duty seriously, states struggle with tailoring adequate processes, NGOs often argue that the duty provides indigenous peoples with an absolute right to give or withhold consent, and corporations use different strategies to limit the scope of consultations. Based on two case studies in Latin America, we identify divergent positions on the duty to consult-positions we call instrumentalist, consent-or-veto power, and minimalist- A nd we explain the main elements of each of these positions. After clarifying common imprecisions, we argue for an approach centred on the human rights of indigenous peoples to reconcile this divergent conceptualization of the duty by different stakeholders. Finally, we argue for reinforcing indigenous peoples' rights with mechanisms for specific safeguards and direct participation in benefits, drawing on the United Nation's 'protect, respect, and remedy' framework, to mitigate the adverse consequences of the existing distribution of sovereign power as predicated by Patrick Macklem's influential work.

AB - Few areas of international law practice illustrate the tensions between business and human rights as well as the implementation of the duty to consult with indigenous peoples. Consultations give indigenous and tribal peoples a safeguard for protection of their rights when confronted by the decisions of governments and business enterprises that may directly affect them. While states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations are starting to rely on, and to take, this duty seriously, states struggle with tailoring adequate processes, NGOs often argue that the duty provides indigenous peoples with an absolute right to give or withhold consent, and corporations use different strategies to limit the scope of consultations. Based on two case studies in Latin America, we identify divergent positions on the duty to consult-positions we call instrumentalist, consent-or-veto power, and minimalist- A nd we explain the main elements of each of these positions. After clarifying common imprecisions, we argue for an approach centred on the human rights of indigenous peoples to reconcile this divergent conceptualization of the duty by different stakeholders. Finally, we argue for reinforcing indigenous peoples' rights with mechanisms for specific safeguards and direct participation in benefits, drawing on the United Nation's 'protect, respect, and remedy' framework, to mitigate the adverse consequences of the existing distribution of sovereign power as predicated by Patrick Macklem's influential work.

KW - Business and human rights

KW - Consultations with indigenous peoples

KW - Duty to consult

KW - ILO Convention no. 169

KW - Indigenous peoples rights

KW - International law

KW - International law theory

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034755597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034755597&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3138/utlj.67.1

DO - 10.3138/utlj.67.1

M3 - Review article

VL - 67

SP - 435

EP - 464

JO - University of Toronto Law Journal

JF - University of Toronto Law Journal

SN - 0042-0220

IS - 4

ER -