Using case studies from Australia, Sweden and Finland, and also drawing on examples from parts of Asia, including Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and Thailand, the thesis explores how state and market actors respond to Indigenous claims and how Indigenous claims are themselves reconstituted through those particular responses. While the duty of protecting Indigenous rights might nominally fall upon the state, we are increasingly witness to the enfolding of market actors and market rationalities in debates concerning Indigenous claims. The research contained in the thesis highlights how a practice of 'passing the buck', or passing of responsibility onto others, is constituted through both market and government relations whereby responsibility for addressing Indigenous claims is shifted from states to corporations, from corporations to states, and from states back to Indigenous peoples themselves. The thesis consists of four articles. Article 1, titled 'Obliging Indigenous Citizens: Shared Responsibility Agreements in Australian Aboriginal Communities' provides a critique of the governmental provision of services to remote Australian Aboriginal communities through quasi-market arrangements. Article 2, titled 'Corporate Social Responsibility, Supply-chains and Saami Claims: Tracing the Political in the Finnish Forestry Industry' explores conflicts over state logging in Saami territories and the construction of the state/market divide in CSR debates over the rights of Indigenous peoples. Article 3, titled 'NGO Campaigns and Banks: Constituting Risk and Uncertainty' studies the negotiated and contested boundaries of markets through debates over the governance of social and environmental risks in the investment banking sector. Article 4, titled 'The Last Frontier? Windpower developments on traditional Saami lands' considers how colonial rationalities constituting the state-Saami relationship are reproduced in new debates over windpower developments in Saami mountain areas. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 4: In progress.</p>

In this paper, the author looks at the impact of the policy of federal recognition on a Los Angeles basin Native community: the Gabrielino Tongva. The first section, the literature review focuses on the difficulties of defining “indigenousness” in the academic and political realms, as well as looking at Native scholars’ conceptualization of this unique and multifaceted identity. After a consideration of the theoretical framework of the study, the crossroads between anthropology and public policy analysis, the author presents the tools she used in her study, namely: participant observation, key-informant interviews, and the analysis of published documents and personal files. The section ends with a review of ethical concerns pertaining to doing research with indigenous people. The historical section comprises an analysis of archives and published works about the Tongva and the federal recognition process. Starting by a brief report of major policies that have impacted Native American rights in the U.S. and the evolution of government relations with indigenous communities, the author looks at the legacy of the Tongva people in L.A. today, paying special attention to past efforts at obtaining federal recognition and political divides within the tribe. The analysis is structured according to the different levels of recognition that the author perceived through her research. “Capital R”, or federal recognition is explored through its impact on the individual and the group, and followed by an account of current efforts towards community recognition – “lower-case r.” The paper ends on recommendations for future policies and a personal reflection about the research and its results.

Since they first emerged into the public consciousness in 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) has gathered considerable attention and support on the world stage for its struggle with the Mexican federal government over the issue of indigenous rights. The Zapatistas are now popularly viewed as indigenous rebels standing up for indigenous rights against the neoliberal economics. Yet comparatively less attention has been given to its struggles with the federal government over an area of protected land within the Lacandón jungle known as the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. The conflict is centered on a large settler population within the Reserve and whether it is a threat to the jungles viability. The environmental group, Conservation International (CI) believes that they are, yet the settlers enjoy the support of the EZLN, who opposes any attempt to move them. Despite this dispute, the two organizations claim seemingly similar goals. CI has declared that it is dedicated to local control over conservation projects. Meanwhile, EZLN has been fighting for greater local political power in regards to indigenous government. More striking still, is that this matter has placed the EZLN in direct opposition to the Lacandón Maya, even though it has portrayed itself as the defender of all of Mexicos indigenous people.<p>It is these apparent contradictions between the EZLNs political positions and the actual sides of the conflict that make the struggle over Montes Azules worth examining. Beyond the simplified statements of public platforms, the objections of the EZLN to the reserve and its supporters to the Lacandones position are rooted in historical conflicts over decision making on landholding. The EZLN feels that the government has constantly excluded indigenous farmers from decision making over this matter to their detriment and thus it feels that local control over land is a fundamental part of indigenous life. As such its position on Montes Azules must be understood in terms of how its ideas of being indigenous come into conflict with the Lacandón Mayas territory in the reserve and CIs position on the settler population. In this way indigenous identity is seen not merely as a matter of cultural significance, but a foundation for a concrete political agenda, which is articulated in the EZLNs stance over Montes Azules.

Since they first emerged into the public consciousness in 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) has gathered considerable attention and support on the world stage for its struggle with the Mexican federal government over the issue of indigenous rights. The Zapatistas are now popularly viewed as indigenous rebels standing up for indigenous rights against the neoliberal economics. Yet comparatively less attention has been given to its struggles with the federal government over an area of protected land within the Lacandón jungle known as the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. The conflict is centered on a large settler population within the Reserve and whether it is a threat to the jungles viability. The environmental group, Conservation International (CI) believes that they are, yet the settlers enjoy the support of the EZLN, who opposes any attempt to move them. Despite this dispute, the two organizations claim seemingly similar goals. CI has declared that it is dedicated to local control over conservation projects. Meanwhile, EZLN has been fighting for greater local political power in regards to indigenous government. More striking still, is that this matter has placed the EZLN in direct opposition to the Lacandón Maya, even though it has portrayed itself as the defender of all of Mexicos indigenous people.<p>It is these apparent contradictions between the EZLNs political positions and the actual sides of the conflict that make the struggle over Montes Azules worth examining. Beyond the simplified statements of public platforms, the objections of the EZLN to the reserve and its supporters to the Lacandones position are rooted in historical conflicts over decision making on landholding. The EZLN feels that the government has constantly excluded indigenous farmers from decision making over this matter to their detriment and thus it feels that local control over land is a fundamental part of indigenous life. As such its position on Montes Azules must be understood in terms of how its ideas of being indigenous come into conflict with the Lacandón Mayas territory in the reserve and CIs position on the settler population. In this way indigenous identity is seen not merely as a matter of cultural significance, but a foundation for a concrete political agenda, which is articulated in the EZLNs stance over Montes Azules.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become something of a "buzz word" for many corporations, including those in the Canadian mining sector. This term merits examination with a critical eye, since the strategic uses of voluntary CSR initiatives go far beyond the altruistic desire to improve corporate practices in the areas of human rights and environmental protection. Through a case study of the protest movement against Goldcorp Inc‘s Marlin Mine in Guatemala, I will demonstrate that CSR alone, without a supporting framework of binding and enforceable regulations, is not enough to guarantee the protection of human and community rights in the global south. / Graduate

In this paper, the author looks at the impact of the policy of federal recognition on a Los Angeles basin Native community: the Gabrielino Tongva. The first section, the literature review focuses on the difficulties of defining “indigenousness” in the academic and political realms, as well as looking at Native scholars’ conceptualization of this unique and multifaceted identity. After a consideration of the theoretical framework of the study, the crossroads between anthropology and public policy analysis, the author presents the tools she used in her study, namely: participant observation, key-informant interviews, and the analysis of published documents and personal files. The section ends with a review of ethical concerns pertaining to doing research with indigenous people. The historical section comprises an analysis of archives and published works about the Tongva and the federal recognition process. Starting by a brief report of major policies that have impacted Native American rights in the U.S. and the evolution of government relations with indigenous communities, the author looks at the legacy of the Tongva people in L.A. today, paying special attention to past efforts at obtaining federal recognition and political divides within the tribe. The analysis is structured according to the different levels of recognition that the author perceived through her research. “Capital R”, or federal recognition is explored through its impact on the individual and the group, and followed by an account of current efforts towards community recognition – “lower-case r.” The paper ends on recommendations for future policies and a personal reflection about the research and its results.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:23:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-03-24Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:11:05Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 evangelista_sa_me_mar.pdf: 840801 bytes, checksum: 49ea302191dafa0954c818c0744ff0f1 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / O presente trabalho tem por objetivo compreender o processo de incorporação econômica das terras indígenas na área Raposa Serra do Sol em Roraima levado a cabo pelos projetos de desenvolvimento que, direta ou indiretamente, foram incentivados pelo governo brasileiro naquela área. A apropriação das terras indígenas naquela porção do território amazônico fomentou, nas últimas décadas, a inserção de agentes econômicos, políticos e culturais cujas orientações estiveram voltadas para a desestruturação das formas de organização e das relações com o meio ambiente, mantidas historicamente pelas comunidades indígenas naquela área. A demarcação da área indígena Raposa Serra do Sol em 2009 propiciou não só a reapropriação daquele território pelos grupos indígenas mas também o surgimento de experiências baseadas no conceito de etnodesenvolvimento; este, configura-se como uma alternativa capaz de assegurar a autonomia dos povos indígenas e abre possibilidades para novas alternativas de desenvolvimento autônomo e sustentável não só para os grupos indígenas da Raposa Serra do Sol como também para inúmeros outros grupos camponeses. / This study aims to understand the process of economic incorporation of indigenous lands in the area of Raposa Serra do Sol in Roraima carried out by development projects that directly or indirectly, were encouraged by the Brazilian government in that area. The appropriation of indigenous lands in that portion of the Amazon territory fueled in recent decades, the inclusion of economic agents, political and cultural orientations which were directed toward the disintegration of the forms of organization and relationships with the environment, maintained by the indigenous communities that historically area. The demarcation of the Raposa Serra do Sol in 2009 led not only the reappropriation of that territory by indigenous groups but also the emergence of experiments based on the concept of ethnic development, it configures itself as an alternative capable of ensuring the autonomy of indigenous peoples and opens up possibilities for new alternatives for autonomous and sustainable development not only for indigenous groups in Raposa Serra do Sol as well as for many other peasants.

Over the last decades the struggle for indigenous rights has accomplished great achievements within international law. In relation to development projects and resource extraction on indigenous lands, the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has gained increased recognition and is today expressed as an important instrument to realize indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. Nevertheless, empirical evidence have identified power asymmetries as one of the major obstacles for effective and meaningful FPIC implementation. This study investigates how power asymmetries emerge and affect the right to self-determination through the four FPIC requirements. Based on field research and by applying a relational approach, the study investigates a case of mining activities in northwestern Argentina where indigenous communities currently experience an increased interest in lithium deposits on their lands from transnational corporations. The study shows how relations characterized by dependency and clientelism create a situation where actors hold unequal power positions which permeate all FPIC requirements severely undermining the principle’s potential to fulfill its purpose. Lastly, based on the findings the study argues substantial underpinnings in terms of necessary preconditions are needed if FPIC are to be able to ensure self-determination.

This thesis critically examines the role of indigeneity in urban policies and planning in a context of constitutional changes that have taken place in Bolivia and Ecuador in the recent decade. It departs from previous academic and policy research which mainly studied indigenous rights in rural areas and focused on urban indigenous peoples as outlawed, excluded, or insurgent subjects. Instead, it conceptualises the translation of indigenous rights into urban policies as a complex process in which a multiplicity of social actors – including government officials and urban indigenous groups – are involved. Drawing on the practice-centric literature on urban policy and planning, it recognises that the work of government officials is influenced by multiple factors such as constitutional texts as well as their personal views, interest group demands, and the wider structural and political environment surrounding them. Government attempts to translate indigenous rights are contrasted to urban indigenous peoples’ own understandings of indigeneity and associated interests and demands. In addition, this thesis uses an asset accumulation framework as well as the concept of tactics to identify how urban indigenous peoples address and negotiate their interests and demands and try to influence decision-making processes from the bottom-up. The thesis relies on La Paz (Bolivia) and Quito (Ecuador) as ‘illustrative cases’ to study the role of indigeneity in urban policies. As both La Paz and Quito represent capital cities, it was possible to approach government officials operating at multiple scales – international, national and local – as well as ordinary urban indigenous residents. Methodologically, the thesis employs a qualitative, case study comparison and draws on information derived from semi-structured interviews, document analysis, participant observation and participatory focus groups conducted during eleven months of fieldwork. In terms of comparison, this thesis makes use of a variation-finding approach. By explaining variations between the cases through focusing on the unique processes and factors that shaped the translation of indigenous rights within each city, it intends to offer a more nuanced and context-responsive approach for studying urban indigeneity and addressing indigenous rights in cities. A central finding of this thesis is that the incorporation of indigeneity into urban policies and indigenous people’s own practices to fulfil their specific demands were characterised by a set of conflicting realities: First, for government officials the translation of indigenous rights into urban policies sometimes clashed with other priorities – such as addressing universal rights and interests of non-indigenous pressure groups – or with their own views of the city as a ‘white’, ‘western’, and ‘modern’ places. Second, urban indigenous peoples articulated multiple and contradictory identities. They mainly did this by voicing specific demands for land – an important asset which they associated with the preservation of a communal and traditional lifestyle but also with aspirations to lead a modern and capitalist life in the city. Third, the findings reveal that indigenous peoples – particularly their community leaders – had to enter in negotiations with governments to access different assets such as land, housing, or education. In these processes leaders manoeuvred between different worlds. They had to conform to political agendas and – particularly in the case of Bolivia – to official spatialized understandings of identity and rights which often conflicted with their own sense of being indigenous in the city.

At the international level, indigenous activism has increasingly taken the form of advocating for ‘indigenous rights.’ These rights-based claims are articulated through a human rights framework, exemplified by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was passed by the UN General Assembly in September 2007. Since this time, the Declaration has become the focal point of indigenous activism at the international – and domestic – levels. Proponents of the DRIP have claimed that it moves international law into a “post-Eurocentric” position, and that for the first time, the rights of indigenous peoples have been recognized by the international community. This thesis interrogates the rights-based discourse employed in international indigenous activism. Using postcolonial and poststructuralist theory, it puts forward a hypothesis of double-movement governance affecting indigenous peoples throughout the world. In this thesis, the double-movement is made up of relations between biopolitical management of indigenous lives, and neoliberal governmentality, which come together to establish the power relations within our present-day colonial system. This double-movement governance is then connected to Glen Sean Coulthard’s critique of a politics of recognition framework, on which human rights are based. Together, this theory forms my hypothesis that instead of providing indigenous peoples with emancipatory pathways out of the colonial present, indigenous rights discourses further entrench colonial norms and hierarchies within indigenous communities, and between States and indigenous peoples. Having established my hypothesis, I then test it with empirical data from the Declaration, indigenous fora at the UN, and domestic laws, agreements and policies. Taking the evidence into account, I argue that despite meaningful steps being taken to establish collective rights for indigenous peoples, a rights-based discourse does indeed continue to entrench colonial norms and hierarchies within indigenous communities and between States and indigenous peoples. This is in part because of issues of translation that occur when indigenous claims are articulated through a human rights framework, but also because a system based upon a politics of recognition – such as a human rights framework – is unable to move indigenous peoples out of the present-day colonial relations of power in which they live. Ultimately, such a system is only able to offer indigenous peoples ‘white liberty and white justice.’