Blocking Oil Development in Yasuní National Park: Ecuador’s Unprecedented Strides Towards Environmental Justice

In a bid to protect the country’s biodiversity, the government of Cameroon became party to the Convention of Biological Diversity. However, the conventions recent post 2020 and its 30 by 30 target which is aimed at designating 30% of earth’s land and Oceans has caused a lot of controversy amongst human rights advocates because of the threat it poses to indigenous land rights and has been welcomed by conservationist because of the potential it has towards the protection of biodiversity. This study was conducted to address the threat posed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and its 30 by 30 target to land rights of indigenous and traditional communities in Cameroon. The study employs a qualitative data analysis to arrive at the findings. Implementing the Convention of Biological Diversity post 2020 and its 30 by 30 target will further increase the land rights of indigenous communities in a country that already has a history of violating the land rights of indigenous communities. In order to ensure that the implementation of the Convention on biological diversity post 2020 and it’s 30 by 30 targets don’t violate the land rights of indigenous and traditional communities in Cameroon, the state must adopt a human rights-based approach towards conservation and also ensure that indigenous communities are not left out in the decision-making process in decisions that affects them directly.

This study aims to analyze the implementation of the Provincial Regulation of Central Kalimantan Number 2 of 2024 concerning the Recognition and Protection of Indigenous Law Communities, particularly regarding the Dayak indigenous communities in Dusun Selatan District. The main focus of this regulation is to provide recognition and protection for the rights of indigenous communities, especially regarding land rights and indigenous culture, which have often been neglected in various development policies. This research uses a empiric juridical approach to assess how this regional regulation can protect these rights and identify the challenges in its implementation on the ground. The findings indicate that although Provincial Regulation Number 2 of 2024 provides a strong legal basis for the recognition of indigenous rights, its implementation still faces many challenges, especially in the legalization of indigenous land rights, outreach to indigenous communities, and the protection of indigenous cultures from the impacts of modernization and development. Therefore, while there are positive steps through this regulation, the protection of indigenous rights still requires more coordinated and effective efforts from all relevant parties to ensure these rights are fully realized

<p>Indonesia, as an agrarian nation, faces the complexities of land management, particularly concerning customary land. The Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960 and Law No. 2 of 2012 regulate land acquisition for public purposes. However, their implementation often triggers conflicts among the government, private entities, and indigenous communities. The case of the Rempang Eco City serves as a vivid illustration of such conflicts, highlighting the need to balance development interests with the protection of indigenous community rights. This study employs a normative juridical method with legal and conceptual approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials are analyzed through literature review and documentation. An inductive approach and legal interpretation are applied to understand customary land acquisition in the context of public interest. Customary land rights (hak ulayat) are recognized under the 1945 Constitution and the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960, provided they do not conflict with national interests. The Rempang Eco City case reveals tensions between the recognition of indigenous rights and the demands of national development. An ideal solution must prioritize deliberation, the acknowledgment of indigenous rights, and fair compensation for indigenous communities, adhering to the principles of social justice and sustainable development.The Rempang Eco City project underscores the importance of recognizing indigenous rights in land acquisition processes. Indigenous community participation, transparent consultations, and fair compensation are crucial steps to prevent conflicts. Therefore, a justice-based approach that emphasizes social welfare and human rights protection must take precedence in the process of acquiring customary land for public purposes.</p>

Purpose: The primary objective of this research is to conduct a comprehensive investigation comprising two key facets: first, the analysis of the constitutional rights of indigenous communities affected by the operations of British Petroleum (BP) Tangguh in Bintuni Bay; and second, an examination of the environmental ramifications resulting from the exploration and exploitation activities of BP Tangguh in the same region. Theoretical Framework: The research adopts a qualitative methodology, specifically employing a juridical-sociological framework, aimed at meticulously evaluating the degree of safeguarding afforded to the rights of indigenous populations in Papua, particularly in response to the repercussions arising from the operational activities conducted by BP Tangguh in Bintuni Bay, Papua. Methods: The methodology employed in this study involves a qualitative inquiry that harnesses the juridical-sociological approach as a fundamental framework to comprehensively assess and gauge the extent of safeguarding extended to the rights of indigenous communities adversely impacted by the exploration and exploitation endeavors of BP Tangguh in the region of Bintuni Bay. Through in-depth qualitative analysis and examination within this juridical-sociological paradigm, the research aims to delve into the intricate nuances and complexities surrounding the protection, or lack thereof, of these indigenous populations in the face of BP Tangguh's activities, aiming to illuminate the challenges and shortcomings in safeguarding their rights within this context. Conclussion: The research findings highlight a significant lack of protection for constitutional rights among Bintuni Bay's indigenous communities, mainly due to BP Tangguh's operations. They reveal BP Tangguh's failure in upholding these rights and emphasize the critical issue of inadequate government oversight, resulting in widespread violations. Urgent actions, including a thorough audit of BP Tangguh and swift implementation of corrective measures by the Government, are recommended to restore and safeguard the violated rights of affected indigenous communities, aiming to ensure their well-being and uphold constitutional rights. Originality/Value: The research contributes original insights by highlighting the failure to protect indigenous rights and the absence of corporate responsibility by BP Tangguh. Moreover, it emphasizes the urgency of governmental intervention, proposing specific steps to rectify the situation. This adds significant value to the discourse on corporate accountability, indigenous rights, and environmental protection in Papua's context.

This research delves into the pressing issue of indigenous peoples' livelihoods in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, highlighting the imminent threat they face. The study underscores the urgent need for government intervention to safeguard the rights of indigenous communities, which are consistently eroded in the name of development. This erosion stems from government-sanctioned land concessions, biased policies, and the involvement of capital interests, all of which disproportionately affect indigenous groups. Employing an ethnographic approach, the research aims to elucidate the intricate dynamics at the nexus of gender, indigenous identity, and environmental justice. Through extensive interviews and observations, the study examines the distinct roles played by indigenous women in forest conservation and community sustainability. It challenges stereotypes portraying indigenous communities as underdeveloped or backward, emphasizing their agency and rejecting their characterization as mere beneficiaries of development. Consequently, indigenous peoples face dwindling access to resources, shrinking livelihood options, and the erosion of traditional knowledge, all while their rights remain largely unrecognized. The findings contribute significantly to the discourse on indigenous rights, particularly highlighting the indispensable role of women in environmental preservation. The research advocates for a more inclusive and equitable approach to natural resource management in Indonesia, emphasizing the need for policies that respect and uphold indigenous rights.

The relocation of Indonesia’s capital city from Jakarta to East Kalimantan (IKN Nusantara) is an ambitious project aimed at reducing pressure on Jakarta and promoting more balanced development across the country. However, land development regulations in IKN often conflict with the customary land values held by local communities. Additionally, land rights regulations under the IKN Law contradict the agrarian reform goals intended by the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. A similar situation occurs in Rempang, where Indigenous communities are burdened with proving ownership of land that is being “seized” under the National Strategic Project (PSN). This is in stark contrast to the constitutional spirit of protecting indigenous rights, which only requires recognition “as long as they still exist.” This study aims to assess the impact of land development regulations on customary land values, focusing on case studies in Rempang and IKN Nusantara in Indonesia. A qualitative approach is used in this research, with data collection methods including in-depth interviews with local stakeholders, policy document analysis, and participatory observation. Rempang and IKN were chosen as case studies because they represent conflicts between development regulations and customary land values. The research found that land development regulations often disregard the rights of indigenous communities, leading to conflicts and dissatisfaction among local communities. In Rempang, Indigenous communities face significant challenges in proving their land ownership, which is constitutionally recognized but overlooked in the implementation of PSN policies. In IKN Nusantara, the implementation of national policies shows significant gaps with local practices, exacerbating tensions and dissatisfaction. Additionally, the study reveals a lack of effective mechanisms to involve indigenous communities in the decision-making process regarding land development, leading to further exclusion and marginalization. To achieve sustainable and inclusive development in IKN Nusantara and Rempang, policymakers must consider and integrate customary land values into development regulations. Policy recommendations include more intensive consultations with indigenous communities, stronger recognition of indigenous land rights, and revising regulations to respond more to local needs. A more participatory and inclusive approach is necessary to reduce conflicts and ensure development benefits all stakeholders. In Rempang, in particular, fair and transparent mechanisms are needed for land rights proof in line with the constitutional spirit.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provides for the rights of Indigenous people and local communities in accordance with United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People. The Parties are obliged to take legislative, administrative and technical measures to recognize, respect and support/ensure the customary laws & institutions and community protocols of Indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). Within the ambit of contemporary debates encompassing Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, this paper examines the effectiveness of international law (i.e. Nagoya Protocol) to influence existing or evolving domestic laws, policies or administrative measures of Parties on access and benefit sharing. Through opinion surveys of Indigenous organizations and national authorities of CBD’s Parties, the findings indicate that the space, recognition and respect created in existing or evolving domestic ABS measures for rights of Indigenous communities are too inadequate to effectively implement the statutory provisions related to customary laws & institutions and community protocols, as envisaged in Nagoya Protocol. As the bio-cultural rights of Indigenous people are key to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the domestic ABS laws need reorientation to be sufficiently effective in translating the spirit of international ABS laws into domestic policies.

This research analyzes the role and authority of the National Land Agency (BPN) in resolving communal land rights (hak ulayat) disputes among the indigenous communities in Bali from a normative juridical perspective. Communal land rights, as the communal rights of indigenous communities over land, often lead to conflicts with development interests and individual ownership. The BPN, as the authorized institution in land administration, plays a crucial role in mediating, facilitating, and resolving these disputes. This study employs a literature review approach, examining various relevant laws and regulations, court decisions, academic journals, and books. The findings indicate that the existing legal framework does not yet fully provide adequate protection for the communal land rights of Balinese indigenous communities. Therefore, harmonization of regulations and a more participatory approach in dispute resolution are needed. The implication of this research is the importance of comprehensive recognition and protection of communal land rights within the national land law framework.

Inequality in land ownership in Indonesia is a major factor triggering agrarian disputes, primarily due to the dominance of ownership by corporations and economic elites, which restricts access to land for small communities. This situation is exacerbated by land policies that favor investment interests and weak legal protection for the rights of indigenous communities and farmers. Inconsistencies in agrarian regulations, such as overlaps between the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and various derivative regulations, further complicate the resolution of land conflicts. Furthermore, weak law enforcement and the government's bias toward large investments mean that communities often lose their land rights without adequate protection mechanisms. Agrarian conflicts occurring in various regions, such as Kalimantan, Papua, Sumatra, and Java, demonstrate that land grabbing in the name of development and investment has deepened social disparities and increased economic and political instability. Therefore, agrarian policy reform that is oriented towards social justice is needed by strengthening the implementation of the 1960 UUPA, ensuring regulatory harmonization, and increasing protection of the rights of small and indigenous communities so that land can be used fairly for the welfare of the people, not just as an economic commodity for a handful of parties.

8 | International Union Rights | 25/4 FOCUS | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES & UNIONS Litigating Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Africa: The Impact of Convention 169 Thirty years after the adoption of ILO Convention No. 169 (C169), only twenty-three States have ratified it. Only one ratifying country is in Asia (Nepal) and one in Africa (Central African Republic). This sparse support is disappointing given that many more ratified its precursor, Convention No. 107: Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan in Asia, and Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, and Tunisia in Africa. In replacing C107 with C169, the ILO was responding to the emergent indigenous peoples’ movement, which rejected C107 as founded on an out-dated integrationist approach. In so doing, C169 re-imagined indigenous peoples as communities deserving of special protections vis-à-vis the majority population and presented a new way of understanding these communities’ concerns. The principles enshrined in C169 — which formalised a more expansive view of the rights of indigenous peoples in international law — and the conceptual shift harkened by its adoption, have informed the way these issues have been subsequently framed and understood by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and by regional human rights institutions. Although many of the concepts and terminology of international human rights law on indigenous peoples derives from the Conventions, much work remains in the realm of C169’s ratification and implementation. This article examines the lack of support for the Convention in Asia and Africa, and assesses the ways in which practitioners have sought to protect the rights of indigenous communities despite C169’s limited ratification. In particular, this article will focus on the experience of Minority Rights Group (MRG), a non-profit organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide. MRG’s experience litigating land rights cases on behalf of indigenous and tribal communities in Africa shows that a more expansive view of the rights of indigenous peoples has made its way into the jurisprudence of the African Human Rights system. Although C169 has informed the way African human rights bodies have interpreted the rights of indigenous peoples under the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), its narrow ratification base and the lack of meaningful implementation models in the countries that have ratified the Convention limit its utility from a strategic litigation perspective. States’ reticence to ratify C169 Although it is hard to know precisely why the majority of African and Asian States have chosen not to ratify C169, particular concerns were voiced in discussions at the ILO, as well as in discussions leading to the adoption of the UNDRIP. The most intractable sticking point involves an ongoing debate surrounding the applicability of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ in Asia and Africa1. In submissions during the C169 drafting sessions, China flatly denied that any indigenous populations lived in their country2. The Indian representative reiterated that, ‘the tribal peoples in India were not comparable in terms of their problems, interest and rights, to the indigenous populations of certain other countries. For this reason, attempts to set international standards on some of the complex and sensitive issues involved might prove to be counter-productive’3. Some governments particularly feared that use of the term ‘peoples’ instead of ‘populations’ could give rise to secessionist aspirations. The representative for India ‘felt that the Committee should carefully consider the impact that the use of “peoples” could have in countries beset with the problems of integration’4. Similar objections were raised to the use of the word ‘territories’ in relation to the ancestral lands of indigenous and tribal peoples. Notably, some of the countries that had ratified C107 simply clung to its integrationist approach. During the C169 drafting sessions, for example, the representative for Bangladesh stated that ‘the existing provisions of [C107] were sufficiently comprehensive. He expressed concern that any attempt to introduce radical changes in the focus and orientation of the Convention would have detrimental effects on territorial integrity and conflict with existing constitutions and legal systems of many countries, and could discourage many countries from ratifying it’5. While each country has its own historical, political, and social context that informs debates over indigeneity...

8 | International Union Rights | 25/4 FOCUS | INDIGENOUS PEOPLES & UNIONS Litigating Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Africa: The Impact of Convention 169 Thirty years after the adoption of ILO Convention No. 169 (C169), only twenty-three States have ratified it. Only one ratifying country is in Asia (Nepal) and one in Africa (Central African Republic). This sparse support is disappointing given that many more ratified its precursor, Convention No. 107: Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan in Asia, and Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, and Tunisia in Africa. In replacing C107 with C169, the ILO was responding to the emergent indigenous peoples’ movement, which rejected C107 as founded on an out-dated integrationist approach. In so doing, C169 re-imagined indigenous peoples as communities deserving of special protections vis-à-vis the majority population and presented a new way of understanding these communities’ concerns. The principles enshrined in C169 — which formalised a more expansive view of the rights of indigenous peoples in international law — and the conceptual shift harkened by its adoption, have informed the way these issues have been subsequently framed and understood by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and by regional human rights institutions. Although many of the concepts and terminology of international human rights law on indigenous peoples derives from the Conventions, much work remains in the realm of C169’s ratification and implementation. This article examines the lack of support for the Convention in Asia and Africa, and assesses the ways in which practitioners have sought to protect the rights of indigenous communities despite C169’s limited ratification. In particular, this article will focus on the experience of Minority Rights Group (MRG), a non-profit organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide. MRG’s experience litigating land rights cases on behalf of indigenous and tribal communities in Africa shows that a more expansive view of the rights of indigenous peoples has made its way into the jurisprudence of the African Human Rights system. Although C169 has informed the way African human rights bodies have interpreted the rights of indigenous peoples under the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), its narrow ratification base and the lack of meaningful implementation models in the countries that have ratified the Convention limit its utility from a strategic litigation perspective. States’ reticence to ratify C169 Although it is hard to know precisely why the majority of African and Asian States have chosen not to ratify C169, particular concerns were voiced in discussions at the ILO, as well as in discussions leading to the adoption of the UNDRIP. The most intractable sticking point involves an ongoing debate surrounding the applicability of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ in Asia and Africa1. In submissions during the C169 drafting sessions, China flatly denied that any indigenous populations lived in their country2. The Indian representative reiterated that, ‘the tribal peoples in India were not comparable in terms of their problems, interest and rights, to the indigenous populations of certain other countries. For this reason, attempts to set international standards on some of the complex and sensitive issues involved might prove to be counter-productive’3. Some governments particularly feared that use of the term ‘peoples’ instead of ‘populations’ could give rise to secessionist aspirations. The representative for India ‘felt that the Committee should carefully consider the impact that the use of “peoples” could have in countries beset with the problems of integration’4. Similar objections were raised to the use of the word ‘territories’ in relation to the ancestral lands of indigenous and tribal peoples. Notably, some of the countries that had ratified C107 simply clung to its integrationist approach. During the C169 drafting sessions, for example, the representative for Bangladesh stated that ‘the existing provisions of [C107] were sufficiently comprehensive. He expressed concern that any attempt to introduce radical changes in the focus and orientation of the Convention would have detrimental effects on territorial integrity and conflict with existing constitutions and legal systems of many countries, and could discourage many countries from ratifying it’5. While each country has its own historical, political, and social context that informs debates over indigeneity...

This research aims to analyze the overlapping issuance of land certificates in the IKN (New Capital City) on customary community land and the provision of inadequate compensation, which remains an unresolved issue. This research will discuss legal protection for overlapping in the issuance of land certificates for freehold owners and for holders. It will also examine the responsibility of the National Land Agency (BPN) for overlapping in the issuance of land certificates in order to address the existing legal issues. The research method used is normative research using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that recognition of customary rights of indigenous communities often faces challenges, particularly related to the unclear status of land ownership. The Nusantara Capital City (IKN) development project has further exacerbated this problem, as it has the potential to displace indigenous communities who have inhabited the area for a long time. To address this issue, there is a need for a more comprehensive effort to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous communities. This includes providing legal certainty for customary rights, actively involving indigenous communities in the decision-making process, and providing suitable replacement land for indigenous communities affected by development. In this way, the development of the IKN can be carried out without sacrificing the rights of indigenous communities and the principles of justice and sustainability.

This article examines how the community of Río Blanco in Ecuador asserted its Indigenous identity in court to defend itself against a mining company in 2017. As other countries in Latin America, Ecuador recently ratified international conventions that provide greater protections for Indigenous peoples and has incorporated key Indigenous rights into its constitution, such as the right of Indigenous communities to be consulted before a mining company can exploit their territory. However, most of the country’s population identifies as mestizo or mixed race and mestizos are ineligible for Indigenous rights. This article asks, what were the legible definitions of indigeneity that Río Blanco members and Indigenous leaders deployed in Ecuador’s courts for recognition? How do communities redefine the meaning of indigeneity in legal cases involving state recognition as Indigenous rather than mestizo? Through an analysis of court documents, I argue Río Blanco legitimated its Indigenous identity in court by presenting itself as closely tied to the land its members lived on and as nature and water protectors. Ultimately, Ecuador’s courts upheld Río Blanco’s Indigenous identity and this community’s right to a consultation, leading to the expulsion of the mining company that was exploiting their territory. The Río Blanco case shows that while Indigenous communities are at a disadvantage in court cases where the state determines racial categories and beneficiary status, Indigenous communities play an active role in redefining what it means to be Indigenous, expanding the Indigenous- mestizo boundary, and furthering Indigenous rights.

Many states offer constitutional protection to the traditional lands of indigenous peoples. International treaties protecting ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples also require protection of the rights of indigenous communities with respect to traditional territories. States have followed different routes in identifying the ownership and resource rights of indigenous communities. In Norway, the Courts have traditionally applied the rules on prescription and immemorial usage, developed through centuries in the farming societies of Scandinavia. The legislature has chosen to follow the same approach in the Finnmark area of Norway under the terms of the Finnmark Act (2005). By contrast, in Canada, a settled colony with an English common law tradition, the Courts have developed a sui generis approach to the recognition of Aboriginal title. This article examines the rules for identifying and legally recognising the traditional lands of indigenous people in Norway and Canada with a view to reflecting on similarities and differences.

Climate change is the most grievous threat of the 21st century and disproportionately affects politically marginalised communities such as Indigenous peoples. As custodians of approximately 80% of the planet’s biodiversity, Indigenous cultures have practised sustainable management of ecosystems and resources over millennia providing vital pathways for humanity to better mitigate accelerating climate change impacts. This article argues that a rights-based approach is an important legal avenue to help better protect and advance Indigenous peoples’ rights and the biodiversity in their regions. The challenge is to develop a framework that incorporates Indigenous rights into international human rights law while obtaining judicial buy-in by domestic legal systems and nations. Drawing from international legal instruments to better protect and bolster Indigenous rights, and using Aotearoa New Zealand as a case study, this paper identifies how rights of Indigenous communities can be enhanced while serving the global goals of climate change mitigation and adaptation.