When President Sebastián Piñera entered office in 2010 the Mapuche indigenous people were receiving two contrasting messages from the Chilean State. On the one hand, the government ratified ILO Convention 169, pledging to protect the indigenous right to prior consultation in programs that affect their communities. On the other hand, the government was involved in the oppression of Mapuche communities in the region of the Araucanía through militarisation and the application of the Anti-Terrorist Law to punish radical Mapuche activists that protest corporate encroachment on their land. While Piñera had the opportunity to legitimize the Mapuche demand for self-determination by implementing ILO Convention 169 according to international standards and putting an end to the “Mapuche Conflict,” instead the situation of the Mapuche political movement worsened under his leadership. The Piñera administration used indigenous rights policy and a discourse of terrorism as a strategy to delegitimize the Mapuche demand for self-determination in order to protect corporate profitability, a key factor in the Chilean neoliberal economic project.

Magister Legum - LLM / Indigenous peoples constitute at least 5000 distinct peoples with a population of more than 370 million, living in 70 different countries. These peoples are typically subjected to a number of human rights violations (being excluded from decision-making processes and forced to assimilate into dominant groups, among others). The plight of these peoples has recently received worldwide attention. In 1989, the international community adopted the Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Convention 169) to protect the rights of these peoples. In 2007 the UN adopted a Declaration on Indigenous peoples’ Rights. Attention is now focused on implementing indigenous peoples’ rights at the domestic level. Cameroon is not yet a party to Convention No.169 and so cannot be bound under the Convention to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples. Cameroon often denies any duty in this regard. However, Cameroon is party to core human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Freedom. Cameroon also voted in favour of the adoption of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights. These international human rights instruments, with the exclusion of the Declaration, are not specifically dedicated to indigenous peoples’ rights. Given this situation, two questions arise: is Cameroon bound by any international legal obligation to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples; and if so, is Cameroon implementing the basic international law principles relating to indigenous peoples’ rights. Using an in-depth study and analysis of various international human rights treaties to which Cameroon is a party, this research will explore the grounds on which Cameroon, though not a party to Convention 169, can be held bound to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples (chapter 2). This research present the situation of the indigenous peoples in Cameroon and provide a brief overview of the legislative and policy measures taken by the government which in some way provide entry points for the protection of the rights of the indigenous people in Cameroon (chapter 3). A critical analysis of these measures highlights some areas of success but also work that remains to be done to ensure that the rights of Cameroon’s indigenous peoples are fully protected (chapter 4). The study concludes with a number of recommendations for further study and legal reform (chapter 5).

This article describes and analyzes the national standard established for the prior consultation proceedings in mining and its relationship with environmental law. These procedures have been created in order to comply with the liability contracted by the Peruvian State in 1995, after the ratification of ILO Convention 169. The article reviews the main elements of Peruvian prior consulting process, including key aspects such as the identification of indigenous peoples, as well as defining the moment at which consulting should be made in the mining area. Finally, the author stresses the no consultations in mining projects at the time and the implications of that fact. / El presente artículo busca describir y analizar el estándar nacional establecido para el desarrollo de procesos de consulta previa en el ámbito de la minería y su relación con la legislación ambiental. Estos procedimientos han sido establecidos con el objeto de cumplir con la obligación que el Estado Peruano asumió en el año 1995, tras la ratificación del Convenio 169 de la OIT. Se pasa revista a los principales componentes del proceso de consulta peruano, incluyendo aspectos cruciales como la identificación de los pueblos indígenas, de las medidas de consultar así como la definición del momento en el cual realizar la consulta en el ámbito minero. Finalmente se destaca la no realización de consultas en los proyectos mineros hasta la fecha y las implicancias de dicho hecho.

The objective of this article is to review and analyze the different arguments and legal excuses made by the Government and the private sector in Peru, this for the purpose of that the first-mentioned institution fails or avoids its juridical obligation of execute the preview consultation process for the indigenous peoples in Peru, this whenever the State is going to adopt a legislative or administrative measure susceptible that will affect directly to the indigenous peoples. In summary, this article seeks to analyze about the juridical problems founded at the moment of the implementation of the preview consultation process in our Legal System. If we consider that Convention 169 ILO, and the right to consult has been in force since February 2nd of 1995, and the Constitutional Court established on binding jurisprudence that the Convention in question is a norm that no needs a legislative development for its effectiveness, thus we can conclude that, rather than arguments is about legal excuses. / El objetivo del artículo es revisar y analizar los diferentes argumentos y pretextos jurídicos utilizados por el Gobierno y el sector privado en el Perú, para que el primero incumpla o evada su obligación jurídica de realizar el proceso de consulta previa con los pueblos indígenas en el Perú, esto cada vez que el Estado prevé adoptar una medida legislativa o administrativa susceptible de afectar directamente a los pueblos indígenas. En buena cuenta lo que hace el artículo es analizar los problemas jurídicos encontrados al momento de implementar la consulta previa en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Si tenemos en cuenta que el Convenio 169 de la OIT, y el derecho a la consulta estaban vigentes, y eran exigibles en el Perú desde el 2 de febrero del año 1995, y que el Tribunal Constitucional ha dicho en jurisprudencia vinculante, que el referido convenio es una norma que no necesita desarrollo legislativo para desplegar sus efectos normativos, podemos concluir, que más que argumentos, se trata de pretextos jurídicos.

La existencia o no de ancestros en la Amazonía indígena ha sidoobjeto de importantes debates. Sin embargo, los líderes de la región no dudan en llamar ‘ancestrales’ sus saberes, normas o territorios,en un sentido que, desde un punto de vista académico, puede parecer enigmático. «Ancestrales, pero… ¿con o sin ancestros?», preguntaría entonces, confuso, el antropólogo. En este artículo propongo aportar elementos de respuesta a estapregunta a través del caso peruano. Primero analizo cómo los líderes indígenas amazónicos, conectándose al circuito del derecho internacional, adoptan la noción jurídica de ‘posesión ancestral’ del territorio para adaptarla al ámbito político. Este planteamiento rinde cuenta de la generalización y uniformización reciente del vocablo ‘ancestral’ pero deja pendiente el problema de su eventual articulación con las cosmologías indígenas que pretende reflejar. Por eso, en la segunda parte, intento sondear sobre la pertinenciade la categoría de ‘ancestro’ en la Amazonía indígena, recordando brevemente el debate académico para ir definiendo en qué medida esta categoría puede cobrar sentido. A partir del testimonio de un experimentado líder awajún, la tercera parte permite, entonces, volver más explícitos los diferentes sentidos y planos referenciales que despliega la referencia a lo ancestral, mostrando cómo los indígenas amazónicos no solo adoptan elementos conceptuales y discursivos externos, sino que al mismo tiempo los transforman a partir de sus propias singularidades cosmológicas y perspectivas políticas. / The existence —or not— of the concept of ancestors in the indigenous Amazon has been the subject of much debate. However, regional leaders do not hesitate to call upon ‘ancestral’ knowledge, customs, or territories in the sense that, from an academic point of view, could appear enigmatic. «Ancestral, but… with or without ancestors?» is the question a confused anthropologist might ask. In this article, I propose to offer elements of a response to this question,based on a case study in Peru. First I analyze how Amazonian indigenous leaders, following international law, have adopted the legal notion of ‘ancestral possession’ of their territory to adapt it to the political sphere. This approach accounts for the recent generalization and uniformization of the term ‘ancestral’, but poses the problem of how it articulates with the indigenous cosmologies that it supposes to reflect. For this reason, I explore in the second section the pertinence of the category of ‘ancestor’ in the indigenous Amazon, briefly drawing upon the academic debate in order to define inwhat way this category takes on meaning. Based on testimony from an experienced Awajún leader, we thus return in the third section more explicitly to the different meanings and planes of reference that unfold when one uses the term ‘ancestral’, showing how Amazonian indigenous people not only adopt external conceptual elements and arguments, but also transform them based on their own cosmological singularities and political perspectives.