Border Fencing, Dual Citizenship, and Indigenous Rights: Upholding United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Longwa Village on the Indo-Myanmar Border

International and domestic rights frameworks are setting the stage for the full recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Canada. However, current political promises to restore Indigenous relations, to reconcile historic wrongs, and to foster mutual prosperity and well-being for all people within Canada remain woefully unfulfilled. Indigenous Peoples continue to call for full engagement with emerging Indigenous rights frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This article discusses the key findings from a multi-year university–community research partnership with Matawa First Nations in which we collaboratively seek to advance understanding of consultation processes and Indigenous experiences of and perspectives on FPIC. The article, based on several years of dialogue and interviews and a two-day workshop on FPIC, offers insight into Indigenous perspectives on FPIC advancing an Indigenous-informed relational approach to consultation and consent seeking.

Even though the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is soft law, the need to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to be informed and to be involved in development projects is strongly backed in international legal instruments including inter alia the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1998) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People (2007). These instruments do not only appear to be the most comprehensive and advanced international legal instruments that deal with indigenous peoples' rights in terms of the FPIC, but also signal an addition to the growing body of international human rights law that serves to ensure the realisation and protection of the substantive environmental and other human rights of indigenous people, particularly in the context of land grabbing activities that have the potential to negatively impact on their rights. Such rights include, for example, the rights to be informed and to participate in decision-making processes with respect to development projects, including land grabbing activities. This implies an obligation on states party to such international agreements to ensure that indigenous people are informed about and are actively involved in both the negotiation and the implementation of land grabbing deals. However, because the latter often takes place against the background of non-transparent transactions which are inimical to the rights and interests of indigenous people, one may wonder why the principle of FPIC is not applicable during land grabbing transactions. Focusing on Cameroon, this article examines instances of land grabbing in the country in order to support this hypothesis. This is done by focusing specifically on the application of the principle of FPIC. The arguments in the article are inspired by international law in which the application of the principle in the context of land grabbing serves not only to protect the rights and interests of indigenous people but is also conducive to fostering and reinforcing the land governance regime of host countries involved in such deals. To this end, the article concludes that because the principle embodies aspects of procedural rights such as the rights to information and participation, which are often conspicuously lacking during land grabbing contracts, its application in and during land grabbing might be useful to set the basis for the recognition, promotion, and enforcement of local communities' rights in Cameroon.

The Northern Review 47 (2018): 113–134The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has catalyzed Indigenous rights conversations in Canada around free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Discussions and debates on FPIC are ubiquitous in scholarly, legal, and political communities, at international and Canadian scales, as all players continue to grapple with understandings of the right to FPIC. The Yukon territory, where mineral extraction has a long history and a majority of First Nations have self-government and settled land claims, offers an ideal case for assessing how FPIC is being defined and exercised in light of possible mine developments. Surprisingly, semi-structured interviews with key informants representing Yukon governance institutions, and a document review, both completed in 2017, reveal limited explicit engagement with the FPIC concept. This paper serves to identify and make sense of this situation in an exploratory way. Three factors are offered to explain what appears to be a lack of engagement by these key Yukon institutions: 1) that modern treaties and associated established governance systems are well respected; 2) that key institutions are awaiting federal action; and 3) that explicit engagement with FPIC will eventually surface in the territory, but has been delayed by established governance systems and treaty implementation priorities. This dynamically evolving and yet ambiguous situation creates an opportunity for better dialogue with specific Indigenous communities and governments regarding their unique expectations and understandings of their right to exercise FPIC.

ABSTRACTOver 21 years after the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (September 2007 – hereafter UNDRIP) was passed, it is useful to examine the functionality and utility of a core principle it contains- the notion of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) with respect to the twin challenges of environmental destruction and a key ‘mitigation’ policy: REDD+. While UNDRIP, and to a lesser extent, the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 (ILO 169) has strengthened the legal status of FPIC, its application has proved to be extremely difficult. This article argues that when considering the potential harm of environmental and REDD+ climate change policies there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on the ‘precautionary principle’ when applying FPIC. Demonstrating why precaution needs to be taken in order to ensure human rights, this article argues that increasing the prominence of the precautionary principle within FPIC can impact significantly on the protection of biodiversity as well as the way in which environmental harm, laws and regulations are understood in relation to their social and cultural impact and shape future responses to the climate change crisis.

Improving state compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) can be supported by monitoring and measurement. Current approaches to monitoring state compliance with the UNDRIP are qualitative and non-standardized, which limits comparability across time and across geopolitical lines. In this article, we introduce a novel approach to monitoring compliance with the UNDRIP and human rights more generally. This work highlights the potential advantages of using a performance improvement framework to clearly identify gaps in compliance, monitor state compliance with the Declaration over time, and effectively assess and compare state compliance. We describe the development of a standardized UNDRIP compliance assessment tool and report the process and findings of a pilot test of the tool. The pilot assessment utilized the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (SRRIP; Anaya, 2014) findings on the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada in three thematic areas: (a) self-government and self-governance; (b) consultation and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); and (c) land and natural resources. While insufficient for a fulsome assessment of Canada’s compliance with the UNDRIP, we restricted ourselves to the report for two reasons: first, to test the applicability of the tool for quantifying qualitative data; and, second, to evaluate the degree to which the UN monitoring mechanism for Indigenous rights adheres to the Declaration’s Articles for monitoring and reporting. We discuss implications and opportunities for improving human rights monitoring and state implementation efforts.

Who is supposed to benefit from the food estate? Introduced during the era of New Order and now back on the table, this policy has indeed taken proponent advocacy (much critique included) to strictly legal or socionatural implications such as those related to indigenous rights and food sovereignty. In Indonesia, the Merauke Food Estate Project is intended to support food security, but has led to land grabs from the Marind indigenous community. As such, this national strategic plan may violate the constitutional and human rights of indigenous peoples. India has similar concerns wherein projects like Mega Food Parks in food estates involves encroachment of rights of Adivasis. This article employs a normative-juridical framework to compare food estate policy in both countries. Working through a legislative and comparative perspective, the results demonstrate that constitutional acknowledgment of indigenous peoples along with their incorporation in national projects hits obstacles for practical approval as a result of more general development and market policies. At the Freeport-McMoRan mine in Merauke, deficient procedures relating to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and recognition of customary land rights are threatening local food security. Bureaucratic hurdles and commercialization have constrained India’s more robust community institutions. The study finds that safeguarding food security through national programs requires a respect for indigenous rights, a focus on policies that are ecologically sound and local engagement.

ABSTRACTThe 2007 adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) represented a watershed moment for Indigenous rights. Though wide-ranging in scope, a core element of UNDRIP is the recognition of rights to land; specifically, the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) embedded in the Declaration. Given the widespread scale of insecurity and conflicts over land facing Indigenous peoples, FPIC represents a critical yet controversial development. This paper explores the links between UNDRIP/FPIC and land conflict in a unique context – sub-Saharan Africa. Notwithstanding the dismissive position of numerous African governments that ‘we are all Indigenous’, divisive debates around the politics of indigeneity are on the rise. Such debates regularly invoke the exclusionary concept of autochthony and centre on competing claims to rights to land. The paper thus considers the following questions: How have African governments responded to UNDRIP? What are the politics around applying the concept of Indigenous rights in the African context? Finally, could the right to FPIC provide a framework for preventing or possibly fuelling conflicts over land? By surveying key developments across the continent, the paper provides an African perspective on the promise and perils of UNDRIP.

The development and implementation of the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) can be understood both as a “romantic” and “tragic” story, using a sharp reflection made by Susan Marks (2012) regarding Human Rights. Following this idea, this essay intends to analyse the main developments of FPIC international human rights in the last three decades (the successful story) and the clear and strong limitations of its use in Latin America (the tragic side to it).Despite the fact that the romantic narrative tells us about a progressive recognition and protection of indigenous rights in international law, especially with instruments such as the ILO Convention 169 (ILO-C169) and the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), these advances have been and are currently deactivated. Through the revision of postcolonial literature and an analysis of relevant research in Latin America, this essay explains how the supposed progress is clearly limited by imbalances in the history of international law itself and in the territorial governance system that is configured in large-scale extractive projects, where FPIC is applied or not. In this manner, despite apparently overcoming colonial times against indigenous peoples, the permanent structure of neo-colonization of indigenous territory prevails for an ever-growing global market.

This chapter begins with a brief history of the Canadian government’s mistreatment of Indigenous people and an overview of the legal frameworks governing Indigenous rights in Canada. Broadly speaking, aboriginal rights are sui generis, or unique, rights held by aboriginal peoples ‘by reason of the fact that aboriginal peoples were once independent, self-governing entities in possession of most of the lands now making up Canada’. Treaty rights arise from treaties or land agreements between Indigenous groups and the Canadian government. The chapter then presents a background of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), focusing on its core principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the corresponding duty to consult. It also examines potential issues and tensions that may arise in adopting UNDRIP as domestic law in Canada. Finally, the chapter looks ahead and discusses strategies to build partnerships between Indigenous groups and the Canadian government as a path forward to achieving reconciliation.

Even though the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is soft law, the need to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to be informed and to be involved in development projects is strongly backed in international legal instruments including inter alia the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1998) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People (2007). These instruments do not only appear to be the most comprehensive and advanced international legal instruments that deal with indigenous peoples' rights in terms of the FPIC, but also signal an addition to the growing body of international human rights law that serves to ensure the realisation and protection of the substantive environmental and other human rights of indigenous people, particularly in the context of land grabbing activities that have the potential to negatively impact on their rights. Such rights include, for example, the rights to be informed and to participate in decision-making processes with respect to development projects, including land grabbing activities. This implies an obligation on states party to such international agreements to ensure that indigenous people are informed about and are actively involved in both the negotiation and the implementation of land grabbing deals. However, because the latter often takes place against the background of non-transparent transactions which are inimical to the rights and interests of indigenous people, one may wonder why the principle of FPIC is not applicable during land grabbing transactions. Focusing on Cameroon, this article examines instances of land grabbing in the country in order to support this hypothesis. This is done by focusing specifically on the application of the principle of FPIC. The arguments in the article are inspired by international law in which the application of the principle in the context of land grabbing serves not only to protect the rights and interests of indigenous people but is also conducive to fostering and reinforcing the land governance regime of host countries involved in such deals. To this end, the article concludes that because the principle embodies aspects of procedural rights such as the rights to information and participation, which are often conspicuously lacking during land grabbing contracts, its application in and during land grabbing might be useful to set the basis for the recognition, promotion, and enforcement of local communities' rights in Cameroon.

Climate change adaptation programs are increasingly presented as essential for sustainable forest management and resilience, yet their design and implementation often sideline Indigenous Peoples' rights. This study examined policy gaps in the implementation of forest-based climate adaptation measures that infringe on the rights of the Sengwer in Embobut Forest, Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya (2009–2020). Guided by securitisation and constructivist theories, the study analysed three major programs: the Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP), the Water Towers Protection and Climate Resilience Program (WaTER), and the Miti Mingi Maisha Bora Program (MMMB), implemented under the Paris Agreement. Although designed to enhance environmental resilience, these initiatives revealed systemic gaps between policy intent and practice, particularly when Indigenous voices were excluded or superficially engaged during design and execution. Anchored in a mixed-methods approach combining questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observations, findings showed that despite Kenya's strong legal instruments, adaptation measures were weakened by politicisation, poor enforcement, and inconsistency. Safeguards such as Article 7.5 of the Paris Agreement, which stress gender-responsive, participatory, and rights-based adaptation, were undermined by top-down planning, tokenistic consultation, and misuse of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). This perpetuated forms of “carbon colonialism,” where global climate agendas advanced at the expense of Indigenous rights and sovereignty. The research calls for inclusive, justice-driven, and community-led adaptation models that integrate FPIC, uphold Indigenous ecological knowledge, and recognise Biocultural protocols such as the Sengwer's 2020 Biocultural Community Protocol. It contributes to climate justice scholarship by reframing adaptation failures as outcomes of governance and policy gaps rather than the absence of legal provisions, and offers policymakers and practitioners practical insights on embedding tenure security and traditional knowledge at the heart of forest governance.

In order to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in Indonesia and the Philippines, this study aims to examine the connection between substantive justice and the FPIC framework. Since Indonesia has not officially adopted Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), there is a major difference between the two countries' legal systems in this respect. On top of that, it's a part of the Philippines' Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA). Methods used in the study include conceptual frameworks, legal philosophy, comparative procedures, comparative approaches to policy and law, and normative (doctrinal) approaches to analysis. In spite of difficulties, the Philippines demonstrates a more thorough application of FPIC, but the results reveal that Indonesia's implementation is shallow and does not effectively protect the rights of indigenous groups. Separate bodies, such as the National Commission for the Rights and Protection of Indigenous Peoples (KNHPMA), should be established in Indonesia so that FPIC may be formally incorporated into laws, according to the paper. By fully integrating FPIC in Indonesia, we may achieve equity, inclusivity, and sustainable development based on respect for local knowledge. This might reduce agricultural disputes and improve the protection of indigenous peoples' human rights.

International law underwent a major shift when the second World War ended; the creation of the United Nations (UN) led to a system based upon human rights. The UN Charter, which affirmed support for equal rights and self-determination, was adopted in 1945, followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. A number of binding treaties were ratified in the years that followed, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. This shift, together with the first explicit endorsement of self-determination, (defined as the freedom of a group of people to choose a political status and pursue development ) led to the demise of colonial powers dominating entire peoples and the creation of a number of new states. Indigenous peoples, effectively trapped within the borders laid down by their colonial oppressors, were largely left out of this. Indigenous peoples, broadly defined as tribal groups that have been somewhat engulfed by settler states, have often been left at a severe disadvantage by this subjugation. They make up about 5% of the world population but 15% of them exist in extreme poverty. The human rights of Indigenous peoples had long been treated as a domestic matter for the states in which their territory fell. This often had disastrous consequences, particularly in terms of their culture and socio-cultural human rights. Forcible attempts were made to assimilate Indigenous peoples in Canada, for example, through the state-sponsored residential school system, in which children were separated from their families, and housed in inhumane conditions. They were ‘educated’ as a means to stamping out Indigenous culture, whilst transferring the children onto the lower rungs of the economy. This practice continued for over a century and, along with other government policies, has been termed a cultural genocide. An international Indigenous rights system has developed during that time frame, however. There are now a number of international agreements and treaties that concern Indigenous peoples, most notably the UN’s Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Whilst this has brought necessary attention to the plight of Indigenous peoples, it is not regarded as a fix-all solution. General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa has warned that ‘even with this progress, Indigenous peoples still face marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They are often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threaten their way of life and very survival.’ This article argues that these clashes have, to an extent, undermined the protections of Indigenous rights, and whilst Indigenous peoples are now recognized by the international human rights regime, they continue to be marginalized. There are fundamental disagreements between several states, not least Canada, and the international Indigenous rights regime. Some of these are ideological, owing to the nature of Indigenous cultural rights themselves and to their uncomfortable fit within the international, ‘universal’ human rights regime that has been prominent since 1945. Other problems are more practical, stemming from the profound clashes between Indigenous cultural beliefs and the more Eurocentric values that tend to underpin modern, Western political and economic systems. A critical examination of the international Indigenous rights system is presented here, with Canada used as a case study. The background and development of the international Indigenous right system is outlined and explained, and its evident strengths and weaknesses briefly described. The article then examines ideological clashes between Western conceptions of human rights and Indigenous rights: self-determination, cultural, and land rights, as well as the collective nature of Indigenous rights. The practical incompatibilities between Indigenous peoples in Canada, and Canada as a sovereign settler state are then evaluated. This will point to the conclusion that the cause of Indigenous peoples has been only marginally advanced by the international Indigenous right system and that the future is not particularly promising.

This research discusses the challenges of implementing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for indigenous peoples in national legal arrangements in Indonesia. FPIC is a principle that gives indigenous peoples the right to give consent to policies that affect their territories and resources freely, prior to full information, and without pressure. Although the FPIC rights of indigenous peoples are implicitly described and regulated in various national regulations, such as the 1945 Constitution, Forestry Law, Village Law, and environmental regulations, these arrangements do not necessarily guarantee the protection of indigenous peoples' rights over their customary territories. Explicit legal arrangements are needed to guarantee indigenous peoples' FPIC rights over their customary territories. This is because in its implementation, the application of FPIC rights still faces various challenges such as conflicts of interest with the State's Right to Control (HMN), low understanding in the field, and gender injustice being the main obstacles. This study uses a normative juridical approach to identify differences between international and national legal arrangements, and offers recommendations to improve the protection and implementation of FPIC in Indonesia. The research emphasizes the importance of explicit legal arrangements to achieve justice, prosperity and harmony between indigenous peoples and the government.

This narrative review examines the integration of Indigenous rights within environmental legal frameworks, focusing on how Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is conceptualized and implemented globally. The study aims to assess whether existing legal systems—both international and national—adequately ensure Indigenous communities' participation in environmental decision-making, particularly concerning extractive and infrastructure projects. Utilizing a narrative literature review method, we synthesized findings from international treaties, national legislations, and case studies from both developed and developing countries. The analysis was structured around the international legal foundations (e.g., UNDRIP, ILO 169), national legal adaptations, case studies involving extractive projects, and community-led strategies for environmental protection. The results show that although international frameworks provide strong normative guidance, national implementation is often inconsistent, constrained by political and economic interests. FPIC, while widely recognized, is frequently reduced to a procedural formality rather than serving as a tool for empowerment. Structural barriers, such as institutional weakness, legal ambiguity, and the dominance of economic paradigms, further erode Indigenous environmental rights. In contrast, countries that integrate legal pluralism and community-driven consultation show more promising outcomes. The study concludes that effective legal reform should prioritize participatory frameworks, enforceable FPIC mechanisms, and the institutionalization of customary knowledge. These findings have implications for policy reform and future research on environmental justice and Indigenous sovereignty.